ANEET COUTINHO Vs. ROAQUE COUTINHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri S. G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Shri Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 and Shri Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent no.2. The above application is for Special Leave to Appeal to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panaji, in Criminal Appeal no. 39/2010.

(2.) A complaint came to be filed by the Applicant against the Respondent no.1 for committing offence punishable under Section , , read with Section of the Indian Penal Code. It was the case of the Applicant that he is the owner of a Matador Pick -Up registered under no. GA -01 -T -3112 and that somewhere in the month of April, 1999, the Respondent no. 1 approached the Applicant with a request to sell him the said vehicle which came to be sold to the Respondent no.1 for an agreed price of Rs.1,90,000/ -. It is further his case that on 09.04.1999, the Respondent no.1 entered into an Agreement and the possession of the said Pick Up came to be delivered along with the documents to the Respondent no.1. The amount of consideration was not paid in cash but by three cheques for Rs.65,000/ -dated 30.05.1999; Rs. 50,000/ -dated 30.06.1999 and Rs.75,000/ -dated 30.07.1999, all drawn on Canara Bank at Cansaulim. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned as dishonoured and after due notice, proceedings under Section of the Negotiable Instruments Act, were initiated by the Applicant. It is further his case that in the course of such proceedings, the Applicant was shocked to learn that the cheque issued by Respondent no. 1 was in fact signed by his wife and the said account was in the name of his wife and not in the name of the Respondent no.1. It is further his case that as such the Respondent no.1 had cheated the Applicant by misrepresenting that the cheques are of his account and initially filed a complaint against the Respondent no.1 and his wife. The wife of the Applicant came to be discharged by the learned J.M.F.C., by Order dated 31.01.2008. Upon recording of evidence, the learned J.M.F.C., convicted the Respondent no.1 for committing offences punishable under Section of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven months and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ -in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

(3.) I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant as well as Respondent no.1. Prima facie, it is not in dispute that the applicant had parted possession of the vehicle at the instance of the Respondent no.1 and that the cheques issued by Respondent no.1 to purchase the vehicle had been dishonoured. It is also on record that the cheques issued by Respondent no.1 were in fact cheques of his wife and not from his own account. There is nothing on record to suggest at this stage that the Applicant was aware that the cheques were issued from the account of his wife. Though Shri Michael Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 has vehemently argued that the whole dispute is a civil dispute and that there are justifiable reasons for Respondent no.1 to refuse the payments as claimed by the Applicant, nevertheless, at this stage, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that, prima facie, the Applicants have made out a case for granting leave to Appeal against the Judgment of acquittal. In such circumstances, I find that the Applicant has made out a case for Special Leave to challenge the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the Respondent no.1. As such, the application is allowed. It is made clear that the findings arrived at by this Court are only prima facie for the purpose of granting leave and shall not bind the Court while disposing of the Appeal on merits. Application stands disposed of accordingly.