TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1502
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune whereby the Accused namely, Shri Lalit Amrutlal Shah, Rajendra Amrutlal Shah, Devendra Amrutlal Shah, Amit Lalit Shah and Apul Lalit Shah stand acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') under Section 386(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') The Trial Court namely, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class ('JMFC'), Court No.8 (Link), Pune in S.C.C. No. 0420758 of 2006 had convicted the Accused in the said offence. 2. By order dated 19th December 2011, while admitting the Appeal, this Court recorded its view that the impugned Judgment and Order required re-considerati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d notice was not replied to by the Respondent No. 2 herein (Original Accused No. 1). Hence, the Complainant made the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act on 8th May 2006 before the Trial Court. Process was issued. The accused appeared and denied the charges against them. The Complainant examined himself and 3 others, namely, Vilas Kashinath Shelke, a clerk working in the office of the Deputy Registrar of Partnership Firms; Smita Pangarkar, the Manager of Bank of Baroda, Gultekdi Branch and Dilip Lunawat, a person stated to witness the handing over of a cheque of Rs. 78,00,000/- by the Respondent No. 3 to the Complainant. The Respondent No. 5 (Original Accused No. 4) testified on behalf of all the Accused. Statement under Section 313 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseology are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 7. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an Appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the Accused has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amined himself and has deposed regarding the hand loan taken by Mr. Pagaria. According to him, the Accused came forward to undertake the responsibility of payment of the hand loan. He has repeated that the Accused requested him to not deposit the cheque till 5th February 2006. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he is unable to specifically state which of the Accused was in charge of the affairs of the Firm at the relevant time. Thus, the blanket statement made by the Complainant in his chief-examination regarding the Accused coming forward to accept the liability of Mr. Pagaria is of no relevance, as he is not aware of the specific role of any of the Accused in the offence. 11. Similarly, none of the witnesses examin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... except a bald averment in paragraph 1 of the complaint made before the JMFC, Pune that the Original Accused Nos. 2 to 6 are responsible for the day-today affairs and conduct of the business of the Accused No. 1-Firm, there is no specific averment in the complaint explaining the role of any of the Accused in the partnership firm. In its recent judgment in the matter of Kamalkishore Shrigopal Taparia v. India Ener-Gen Private Limited & Anr. 2025 INSC 223, the Supreme Court, while discussing its earlier judgments, has held that mere designation as a director is not sufficient; specific role and responsibility must be established in the complaint. In N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh (2007) 9 SCC 481, the Court in paragraph 8 observed as under: ....