RAJENDRA BABURAO MAHALE Vs. VARSHA MAHESH DANGAREKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Acquittal recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. on 7th August, 2002 for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is questioned by the complainant by preferring Criminal Appeal (as then prevalent). It was admitted on 26th November, 2008. Parties are referred as complainant and accused.

(2.) The complainant- Rajendra, out of friendship with Mahesh, has, allegedly, given Rs. 40,000/- as a hand loan and in lieu thereof, on 15th May, 1996, a cheque of Rs. 40,000/- dated 15th June, 1996 was issued to him by Mahesh. The cheque was presented to the banker on due date. Dishonour resulted in serving statutory notice to the accused. It was unclaimed; followed by complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against accused Varsha and Mahesh. Learned Judge, read the complaint as a whole, but did not issue process against Mahesh. Thus, the matter proceeded only against accused Varsha. In order to substantiate the claim, the complainant Rajendra entered into witness box and placed on record the cheque, bank return memo, office copy of notice, postal receipt, postal unserved envelope. In his examination-in-chief, he has canvassed, both Varsha and her husband Mahesh had approached him, they received Rs. 40,000/- and in discharge thereof, questioned cheque was issued.

(3.) The stand of accused was, Varsha had no monitory transaction with the complainant. It was a blank signed cheque. She did not fill-in the contents thereof and it has been misused by the complainant. It is also on record, her husband--Mahesh, since then, is missing and his whereabouts are not known. In cross-examination, Rajendra has accepted, he has earlier transaction with Mahesh which has been cleared. This was subsequent/second transaction with Mahesh. He accepted that he had no transaction with Varsha. Even, the cheque which has been proved, was not in his handwriting. The compliance in terms of Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act and inchoate documents, has been strictly adhered to. He claimed, he has filed the complaint petition for getting money, against Mahesh and Varsha but, as stated earlier, his complaint against Mahesh is dismissed. In the complaint petition, there is no reference as to whether, at the time of releasing money, accused Varsha was present. On the contrary, the complaint indicated, Mahesh had handed over the cheque signed/drawn by Varsha to him, which suggests that, at the time of handing over the cheque, Varsha was not present. The complainant was unaware about financial status of Varsha or her activities. He had no transaction with her. He did not write contents in the cheque. There is no documents or even earlier events to suggest that Varsha accepted liability of her husband by way of issuing cheque.