PANDURANG Vs. SALIM KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to file appeal. The accused has been acquitted for committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On Perusing the record, I find that the cheque was in fact presented by the complainant in Pune. The Trial Court without referring to this factor held that the Pune Court had no jurisdiction. The Advocate for the applicant has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and anr., 2000 1 MhLJ 193. In the said judgment the Apex Court had laid down five different causes of action which give rise to the jurisdiction to a court to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Since cheque was presented in Pune, it is obvious that the Pune Court had jurisdiction. Once it is found that the Trial Court has jurisdiction, the other findings of the trial court are revalidated. It also appears that the applicant is money lender. I had asked the parties to file evidence and it appears that in his cross examination the applicant/complainant has admitted that his yearly income was Rs. 25/- to 30/- lakhs. He has admitted that he had filed several complainants under Section 138 of the Act against different people in different courts. Similarly, he has also filed civil proceedings for recovery of money against several other people. He has admitted that he had given Rs. 18,50,000/- as hand loan to various people. In view of the above admissions, it appears that the applicant is a money lender and the findings recorded by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse. In my view, this is not a fit case for grant of leave. Hence, leave refused. Consequently, the appeal papers to be filed.