Bombay High Court
M/S. Baliraja Agrotech Company Pvt. ... vs M/S. Pratik Krushi Seva Kendra, Ausa ... on 8 January, 2020
Author: K.K. Sonawane
Bench: K.K. Sonawane
1 962 sr.no. crapln 220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
962 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO.220 OF 2018
M/S. BALIRAJA AGROTECH COMPANY PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED PERSON ABASAHEB N
VERSUS
M/S. PRATIK KRUSHI SEVA KENDRA, AUSA THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Vikrant S. Palsikar
...
CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.
DATED : 08th JANUARY, 2020.
ORDER :-
The applicant company is seeking leave to present an appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent accused passed by the learned JMFC, Aurangabad in SCC No.4396 of 2015, fled under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. According to applicant company the respondent No.2 was the authorized dealer of the applicant company for selling the agricultural produce. The Dealership Agreement was executed between the applicant and respondent private frm. It has been alleged that the respondent authorized dealer purchased goods from the applicant company worth Rs. 1,05,098/-. It has been alleged that the respondent purchased goods from the applicant company on credit during the period between 2014 to 2018, worth Rs.1,05,098/-. The respondent did not make any payment of price of goods purchased from the applicant company. After several requests, the respondent issued the impugned cheque in favour of the applicant company for discharging legal liability but the impugned cheque came to be dis-honoured for lack of sufcient funds. The legal notice was issued to the respondent but applicant did not receive any response from the respondent . Eventually, the applicant company initiated penal proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The learned Magistrate issued summons to the respondent accused, pursuant to which he secured his presence in the matter before the ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 07:13:24 ::: 2 962 sr.no. crapln 220 Magistrate and pleaded not guilty. The applicant- company adduced evidence and produced relevant documents in support of its contentions. The respondent/accused did not adduce any evidence in defance.
2] The learned trial court appreciated the entire evidence on record and arrived at the conclusion that the representative of the applicant company Shri Abasaheb Chaudhari had no knowledge of the alleged transaction in between the applicant and respondent accused. Moreover, impugned cheque was not delivered in favour of the applicant company for discharging legal liability. In the result, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and absolved the respondent/accused for the charges pitted against him. Being dissatisfed with the fnding of acquittal of respondent/accused the applicant company is intending the prever an appeal to redress its grievances. Therefore, the applicant company is seeking leave to prefer an appeal to redress its grievances.
3] Despite service of notice, no one else appeared on behalf of respondent/accused. Therefore, this court could not avail any opportunity to hear the respondent/accused on the issue of leave to fle appeal against his acquittal.
4] Having given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for applicant and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate, prima facie, it appears that there was money transaction in between the applicant and respondent/accused being authorized dealer of the applicant company for selling agricultural produce. The applicant adduced evidence of its representative Mr. Abasaheb Chaudhari and also produced relevant documents on record in regard to authorization of Mr. Chaudhari to adduce evidence. The document of agreement of dealership in between the applicant company and respondent/accused also produced on record.
5] It is not in dispute that the respondent/accused issued cheque in favour of the applicant which came to be dishonoured for ::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 07:13:24 ::: 3 962 sr.no. crapln 220 lack of sufcient funds. It has been alleged on behalf of respondent/accused before the learned trial court that the alleged cheque was given in favour of appellant company by way of security for purchasing the agricultural produce, being its authorized dealer. The respondent accused contended before the learned trial court that the entire amount of goods purchased by it from the applicant company was already paid and there was no balance amount remained outstanding towards respondent/accused.
5] Be that as it it may, the presumption prescribed under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is required to be taken into consideration while appreciating the factual aspects on record in this matter. Admittedly, there was money transaction in between the applicant company and respondent/accused resulting into issuance of impugned cheque which was dishonoured for lack of sufcient funds. The defence of respondent/accused and the evidence adduced on record by the applicant company is required to be tested on the anvil of merit in detail hearing of appeal. Therefore, reasonable opportunity is essential to be granted to the applicant. In such circumstances, leave as contemplated under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is required to be accorded in favour of applicant company for substantial justice. Hence, leave is hereby granted to the applicant to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of respondent accused.
6] Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeal. On registration of appeal, issue notice to respondent sole returnable on 5th February, 2020. Meanwhile, call R. & P. from the concerned trial court.
[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE GRT/-
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 07:13:24 :::