Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 03 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicant: Kiran A. Paraswar (complainant) filed Criminal Application (ALP) No.115 of 2021 challenging the order dated 24‑09‑2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which acquitted Respondent No.1, Rajashree R. Shelke (through M/s. Rajashree Enterprises), in Criminal Appeal No.493 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
  • Underlying dispute: In May 2009, Respondent No.1 allegedly approached the Applicant for a hand loan of Rs.3,50,000. The Applicant disbursed the amount. For partial repayment, a cheque of Rs.2,00,000 dated 10‑12‑2009 was issued, which later bounced for insufficient funds.
  • Trial evidence: Applicant examined as PW1; bank employee as PW2; postal employee as PW3; Applicant’s wife, Mrs. Smita, as PW4; Respondent No.1 examined as DW1.
  • Initial conviction: The 25th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, on 16‑09‑2017 convicted Respondent No.1 under Section 138, sentencing her to six months simple imprisonment and a compensation of Rs.4,00,000.
  • Appeal: Respondent No.1 appealed, resulting in the acquittal order dated 24‑09‑2021, which the Applicant now seeks to challenge via a leave application.
  • Arguments: Applicant’s counsel argued that the defence of the Respondent (that the cheque book was with her son who misused a blank cheque) is implausible, that the signature and demand notice are undisputed, invoking the presumption under Section 139 in favour of the Applicant. Respondent’s counsel contended that the presumption is rebutted because the Applicant lacked financial capacity to advance the loan.
  • Court’s reasoning: The bench observed that the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable and the Accused can rely on the complainant’s evidence. The complainant failed to demonstrate his financial capacity or provide documentary evidence of the loan’s date, time, or demand details. The complainant’s wife’s testimony about withdrawals did not match the alleged loan amount, and the suggestion that the cheque was misused by the Accused’s son was deemed a change of stand.
  • Conclusion: The Appellate Court correctly found that the offence was not proved against Respondent No.1; therefore, no perversity exists in the acquittal order.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court rejected the leave application, thereby confirming the order of acquittal. Respondent No.1 is free to withdraw the amount she had deposited with the Sessions Court.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Negotiable Instruments Act, Criminal Appeal