Bombay High Court
NANDA MOHAN SHAHversusKIRIT RATILAL SHAH and ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court correctly acquitted the accused as the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable liability, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellant, Nanda Mohan Shah, challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge who had acquitted Kirit Ratilal Shah (Respondent No.1) in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court had convicted the respondent for issuing a cheque without sufficient funds, but the appellate court set aside that conviction. The appellate court held that the complainant failed to establish any monetary liability on the accused that would justify the issuance of the cheque. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the cheque was not issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt. The High Court found no error or perversity in this reasoning and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the complainant proved a legally enforceable monetary liability on the accused to justify the issuance of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 138
- cheque bounce
- criminal liability
- acquittal
- appeal
Judgment
1 904-APEAL 679-04.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.679 OF 2004
Nanda 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
Digitally
signed by
MUGDHA
MANOJ
P.C. :
MUGDHA
MANOJ PARANJAPE
PARANJAPE Date:
2026.08.27
18:26:03
+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.26 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 679-04.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…