UDAY BHALCHANDRA PETHE Vs. HARI RAMCHANDRA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate appearing for the applicant in support of this application under sub-section 4 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant filed a complaint against the 1st respondent alleging commission of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the 1st respondent. The learned Judge has given various ground for acquitting the 1st respondent. The learned trial Judge considered various decisions of this Court and observed that the cheque was not issued towards legally enforceable debt. The learned Judge referred to the case made out by the applicant that the amount covered by the cheque was due and payable by the wife of the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the 1st respondent had stood as a guarantor to his wife and in his capacity as the guarantor, he had issued the cheque in dispute. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd Vs. Beena Shabeer & Anr. [(2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 426]. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error.

(3.) IN the circumstances, the view taken by the learned Judge is certainly a possible view. No case is made out for grant of leave. Application for leave is rejected. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for limited purpose of examining the prayer for grant of special leave. None of the observations made herein shall be construed as any finding or adjudication made by this Court as regards rights and liabilities of the parties.