Bombay High Court

KAMLA RATILAL SHAHversusKIRIT RATILAL SHAH and ANR.

Decided: 18 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The appellate court's finding that there was no proof of liability was not perverse, so the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant Kamla Ratilal Shah appealed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad‑Alibag, which had allowed the appeal of respondent Kirit Ratilal Shah and acquitted him of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court had convicted the respondent for issuing a cheque without sufficient funds. The appellate court held that the complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable monetary liability on the accused and that the cheque was not issued to discharge such liability. The High Court examined whether this finding was perverse. Finding no perversity in the appellate court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the acquittal.

Issues considered

Whether the complainant proved a legally enforceable monetary liability on the accused.
Whether the cheque in question was issued for the discharge of such liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Whether the appellate court's finding that liability was not proved was perverse.

Legislation cited

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138

Subjects

Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act
cheque bounce
criminal appeal
liability
acquittal
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

1 904-APEAL 677-04.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.677 OF 2004

Kamla Ratilal Shah … Appellant
Vs.
Kirit Ratilal Shah & Anr. … Respondents
-----
Mr. Prathamesh Naik h/f Kocharekar for the Appellant.
Mr. Vivek Rane for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for Respondent No.2-State.
-----

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 18TH AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
Digitally
signed by
MUGDHA
MUGDHA MANOJ
MANOJ PARANJAPE
PARANJAPE Date:
2026.08.27
18:25:45
+0530
1. This Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 04 th
March 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in
Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2002.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 against
the judgment and order of the trial court, by which Respondent No.1 was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.

3. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned
Counsel for Respondent No.1 and perused the impugned judgment and
order.

Mugdha 1 of 2
2 904-APEAL 677-04.doc

4. The learned appellate court to acquit the Respondent No.1 has
recorded the finding that complainant has failed to prove that there was
any monetary liability on accused to repay the money to him and that he
had done so by issuing the cheque in question. The appellate court has
thus, held that, the complainant has failed to prove that cheque in
question was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable liability.

5. The above finding is not shown to be perverse. In that view of the
matter, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order.
The Criminal Appeal is thus dismissed.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

Mugdha 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…