Bombay High Court
GEETA MOHAN SHAHversusKIRIT RATILAL SHAH and ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court's finding that the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable liability is not perverse, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
Geeta Mohan Shah appealed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad‑Alibag, which had allowed the appeal of Kirit Ratilal Shah (Respondent No.1) and acquitted him of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court had convicted Respondent No.1 for issuing a cheque without sufficient funds. On appeal, the appellate court held that the complainant failed to establish any monetary liability on the accused and that the cheque was not issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt. Consequently, the appellate court acquitted Respondent No.1. The High Court of Bombay, however, found that this finding was not perverse and dismissed the present appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Issues considered
- Whether the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable monetary liability on the accused for the issuance of the cheque.
- Whether the appellate court's finding of no liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is perverse.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- cheque bounce
- criminal liability
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
1 904-APEAL 678-04.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.678 OF 2004
Geeta Mohan 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
1. This Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 04 th
PARANJAPE Date:
2026.08.27
18:25:53
+0530 March 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in
Criminal Appeal No.27 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 678-04.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
Checking your session…