AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 1165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d December 2008 rendered in Criminal Complaint Case No. 4872 of 2005. The facts are as under. Appellant-The Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 while respondent no. 1 is Chairman of Kuhi Taluka Shetki Kharedi Vikri Sahakari Sanstha and respondent no. 2 is the Manager of said Sanstha. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their original status in the complaint. There were business transactions between the parties and according to the complainant as on 31.8.2004 an amount of Rs. 4,91,445/stood outstanding against the accused and for payment of dues, they issued cheque bearing no. 110467 dated 17.11.2004 drawn on Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Nagpur for Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stion did not bear their signature and a false case was filed against them. 4. Learned Special Judge, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced on record and after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Learned counsel for the complainant strenuously argued that defence of the accused was that they did not sign the cheque and cheque was given for security purpose. He submits that since the trial Court has not accepted the defence of the accused and inferred their signature on the cheque in question. Hence, accused ought to have been convicted for an offence punishable under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 441 Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (6) 2008 (1) MhLJ 505 Hemant Pavel v. Socorro Santan (7) 2010 (2) Bom CR (Cri) 822 Nitin Mankar v. Vyankatesh Housing & anr (8) 2010 (5) MhLJ 129 Matoshri Cashew Nuts v. Mohammad Kadar (9) (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 558 S.L. Constructions & anr v. Alapati Rao & anr (10) (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 823 Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets while learned counsel for the respondents pressed into service the following case laws : (1) AIR 2008 SC 166 Hariom Agrawal v. Prakash Chand Malviya (2) 2011 CriLJ 531 Joseph Vilangadan v. Phenomenal Health & anr (3) 2006 (5) MhLJ 676 M. S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala & anr 8. Precisely enough, following legal position ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l. (5) Silence on the part of the accused in not replying to the statutory notice is a strong circumstance which may reflect the falsity of the case of the accused. (6) If all presentations of cheque were within validity period of six months, condition precedent as stipulated in proviso clause (a) of Section 138 of the Act is satisfied. There is no prohibition on the number of times the cheque is presented within six months. (7) If there is dishonour of a cheque issued by way of security and8 not issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability, such dishonour would not come within the purview of Section 138 of the Act. (8) As far as appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the said circular, accused issued reply dated 20.4.2003 and along with the reply accused issued two cheques bearing nos. 110466 and 110467. Accused regretted their inability to furnish bank guarantee since they were not permitted to do so. Cheque used in this case is bearing number 110467. It has been held by the Apex Court in M. S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala & anr (supra) that If there is dishonour of a cheque issued by way of security and not issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability, such dishonour would not come within the purview of Section 138 of the Act. Complaint of the complainant Corporation fails on this count alone. 10. On 20.9.2005 when the process was issued against the accused, comp....