Bombay High Court
MANJULA MOHAN SHAHversusKIRIT RATILAL SHAH and ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 NI Act is upheld.
Summary
Manjula Mohan Shah appealed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag, which had allowed the appeal of Kirit Ratilal Shah and acquitted him of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court examined whether the complainant had established a legally enforceable monetary liability that the cheque in question was meant to discharge. The court found that the complainant failed to prove any such liability and therefore the cheque could not be said to have been issued for discharge of a debt. Consequently, the finding of the lower appellate court was not perverse. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondent.
Issues considered
- Whether the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable monetary liability owed by the accused at the time of issuing the cheque.
- Whether the cheque was issued for the discharge of such liability within the meaning of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- cheque bounce
- monetary liability
- criminal appeal
- acquittal
Judgment
1 904-APEAL 680-04.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.680 OF 2004
Manjula Mohan Shah … Appellant
Vs.
Kirit Ratilal Shah & Anr. … Respondents
-----
Mr. Prathamesh Naik h/f Kocharekar for the Appellant.
Mr. Abhishek Karnik, appointed advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for Respondent No.2-State.
-----
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 18TH AUGUST 2026
Digitally P.C. :
signed by
MUGDHA
MUGDHA MANOJ
MANOJ PARANJAPE
PARANJAPE Date:
2026.08.27
18:26:11 1. This Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 04 th
+0530
March 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in
Criminal Appeal No.28 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 680-04.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…