DHANRAJ BALKRISHNA KHOND Vs. JAGANNATH SUDAM SONAWANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the small but technical issue has arisen in this appeal and it has become more interesting in view of the detail and thorough arguments advanced by learned Advocate Dr. Warunjikar for the Appellant-Complainant and learned Advocate Ms. Bhakti A. Gadamagaonkar for the Respondent No. 1-accused.

(2.) Learned Advocate Dr. Warunjikar with all his experience and articulation tried to convince me that statutory notice prior to lodging of prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was given in time. Even on some occasion his colleagues Mr. Aditya Kharkar, Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar also tried their level best to convince me. However to the misfortune of the Appellant, their arguments though attractive have not convinced my conscious. Hence I have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal.

(3.) The Court of the JMFC Court No. 9, Pune as per judgment dtd. 27/01/1999 was pleased to acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court framed only one composite point whereby he included all the ingredients of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As everyone knows the issue about existence of legally recoverable debt or liability, reason for dishonour, issuing statutory notice in time and filing the complaint in time are the necessary ingredients.