NANDLAL VASURAM DHANANI Vs. SHRICHAND VASURAM DHANANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these proceedings are filed by one and the same applicant/appellant Nandlal Vasuram Dhanani against his real brother respondent Shrichand Vasuram Dhanani. To avoid ambiguity the parties are referred to their first names. The appellant/applicant Nandlal has filed Criminal Appeal No.560 of 2002 for assailing the judgment and order dtd. 22/2/2002 passed by the learned 3rd Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in STC No. 2127/1996 whereby the respondent Shrichand has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "N.I. Act"). The applicant Nandlal has filed Criminal Revision Application No. 307 of 2009 for challenging the judgment and order dtd. 7/11/2009 in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna i.e. the learned appellate Court, whereby the judgment and order dtd. 22/2/2002 passed by the learned trial Court in R.C.C. No.359/1996 has been confirmed under which the applicant Nandlal is convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short). Admittedly, the applicant Nandlal has been convicted by the learned trial Court and sentenced to suffer six months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 465, rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1000.00 for the offence under Sec. 467 of I.P.C. Similar punishment for the offence under Sec. 468 of I.P.C. and six months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 471 of I.P.C. It is to be noted that the learned trial Court has passed common judgment in both the cases namely R.C.C. No. 359/1996 and STC No. 2127/1996.

(2.) The background facts are as under :

(3.) On the other hand, Nandlal had filed STC No. 2127/1996 against Shrichand for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act since the aforesaid cheque in dispute was dishonoured. In his case, Nandlal alleged that Shrichand had filed Special Civil Suit No. 57 of 1993 against Nandlal and others in respect of rendition of accounts of Raj Kirana Merchant. There was compromise between them in the said suit on 29/6/1996. It was agreed in the said suit that Shrichand and his mother Vindurabai were to continue with the business of aforesaid grocery shop and Nandlal was to execute registered sale deed in respect of his share in CTS No.693. Nandlal had also agreed to hand over premises of the shop to Shrichand alongwith furniture and fixtures. It is contended by Nandlal that in view of the aforesaid settlement, Shrichand had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.13,00,000.00 (Rupees Thirteen Lakh) to Nandlal for waiving Nandlal's entire right. In pursuance to this settlement, Shrichand then paid an amount of Rs.29,500.00 to Nandlal on 2/7/1996 and on the very day Shrichand had handed over the disputed cheque to Nandlal. Nandlal has come with a case that on 24/7/1996 he presented the disputed cheque in his bank i.e. the Bank of India, but the same was dishonoured with a reason that payment was stopped by drawer. According to Nandlal, there were no sufficient funds in the bank account of Shrichand, and therefore, cheque was dishonoured on 24/7/1996. Thereafter Nandlal issued statutory notice on 1/8/1996 which was received by Shrichand on 5/8/1996. However, despite paying the cheque amount Shrichand gave false and evasive reply on 11/8/1996. As such, Nandlal was constrained to file STC No. 2127/1996.