Tatyasaheb Kore Warna Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd. v. Chaturabai Dinkar Awaghade
2010-01-07
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
body2010
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT:- This application seeks leave to appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panhala dated 6/2/2009. 2. The applicant is the original complaint in a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The only contention raised before me to challenge the order of acquittal is that the trial judge was in complete error in holding that the complaint is not maintainable because the cheque in question has been presented 6 months from the date it was drawn. The submission is that the cheque bears the date as 31/10/2005 and therefore its presentation on 15/4/2006 cannot be said to be beyond the stipulated period. It was presented within the validity period, dishonoured and this is evident from the Bank Memo bearing dated 15/4/2006. Further, it has also come on record during the course of deposition of witnesses that the cheque is dated 31/10/2005 and not 11/10/2005. 4. With the able assistance of the counsel appearing for both sides, I have perused the application and the Annexures thereto including the impugned judgment. In the complaint, it is stated that the cheque is dated 11/1012005. In paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment, the learned Judge while discussing the oral and documentary evidence has concluded that the cheque ought to have been presented within a period of 6 months from 11/10/2005 i.e. before 11/04/2006. However, in the complaint as also in the notice it is stated that the cheque is presented on 12/04/2006. There is another date of presentation mentioned as 25/04/2006. Further, reliance placed upon the bank memo before me itself would denote that it is dated 15/04/2006. In such circumstances, the view taken that the cheque is not presented within the validity period of 6 months is a possible view and based upon the evidence adduced by the parties. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the judgment does not suffer from any perversity, so as to call for interference in the appellate jurisdiction. The application is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.