Bombay High Court
KUMARI ANURADHA MOHAN SHAHversusKIRIT RATILAL SHAH and ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the appellate court's finding that the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable liability was not perverse and therefore affirmed the acquittal.
Summary
The appellant Anuradha Mohan Shah appealed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad‑Alibag, which had allowed the appeal of 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 Additional Sessions Judge held that the complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable monetary liability that the cheque was meant to discharge. The High Court examined the findings and concluded that the appellate court's observation was not perverse and that the evidence indeed did not show a liability. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeal, upholding the acquittal of Respondent No.1.
Issues considered
- What is the requisite proof of a legally enforceable liability for a cheque to attract liability 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
- appeal
- acquittal
Judgment
1 904-APEAL 681-04.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.681 OF 2004
Anuradha 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
P.C. :
Digitally
signed by
MUGDHA
MUGDHA MANOJ
MANOJ PARANJAPE
PARANJAPE Date:
2026.08.27
18:26:22
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.25 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 681-04.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…