The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the acquittal of five accused persons in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case originated from a hand loan of Rs.56,50,000/- taken by Mr. Hirachand Raichand Pagaria from the complainant in July 2004. The accused, being friends of Mr. Pagaria, undertook to satisfy the loan and issued a cheque for Rs.78,00,000/- dated 31st January 2006. The cheque was dishonoured upon presentation. The Trial Court convicted the accused, but the Additional Sessions Court acquitted them. The High Court, applying principles from Supreme Court precedent, found no grounds to interfere with the acquittal, emphasizing the double presumption in favour of the accused and the appellate court's limited scope in such matters.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the Original Complainant against the Judgment and Order dated 31st January 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune -- The Additional Sessions Judge had acquitted the Accused persons of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) under Section 386(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) -- The Trial Court (Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.8, Pune) had initially convicted the Accused in S.C.C. No. 0420758 of 2006 -- The High Court examined the principles governing interference in appeals against acquittal as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2022) 3 SCC 471 -- The Court noted the double presumption in favour of the accused in acquittal cases -- Firstly, the presumption of innocence under fundamental criminal jurisprudence principles -- Secondly, the presumption that the acquittal was proper -- The Court found no substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the acquittal order -- The Appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the Accused persons
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused persons -- The Court found no substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the acquittal order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 141
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1120 of 2011
Date of Decision: 2026-01-28
Case Title: The Issue of whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Before Judge: Dr. Neela Gokhale J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-AS:4125
Advocate(s): Mr. Abhishek Pungliya for the Appellant, Ms. Poonam P. Bhosale, APP for Respondent No.1-State, Mr. Subhash Jha along with Siddharth Jha, Sumit Upadhyay i/b Law Global Advocates for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7
Appellant: Mr. Vijaykant Motilal Kothari
Respondent: 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. Om Engineers and Builders, 3. Lalit Amrutlal Shah, 4. Rajendra Amrutlal Shah, 5. Devendra Amrutlal Shah, 6. Amit Lalit Shah, 7. Apul Lalit Shah
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Remedy Sought: The appellant (original complainant) sought to set aside the acquittal order and restore the conviction of the accused persons
Filing Reason: The appellant challenged the Judgment and Order dated 31st January 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune which acquitted the accused persons
Previous Decisions: Trial Court (JMFC, Pune) convicted the accused on 1st March 2008 -- Additional Sessions Court, Pune acquitted the accused on 31st January 2011 -- High Court admitted the appeal on 19th December 2011
Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of the accused persons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Whether there were substantial and compelling reasons to overturn the acquittal order
Submissions/Arguments: The appellant challenged the acquittal as erroneous The respondents defended the acquittal as proper under the law The court examined principles governing interference in acquittal appeals
Ratio Decidendi: In appeals against acquittal, appellate courts must bear in mind the double presumption in favour of the accused -- Firstly, the presumption of innocence under fundamental criminal jurisprudence principles -- Secondly, the presumption that the acquittal was proper -- Appellate courts have full power to review evidence but should interfere only when there are substantial and compelling reasons -- The phrases 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds' etc. are not intended to curtail the appellate court's powers but emphasize reluctance to interfere with acquittals
Judgment Excerpts: This Appeal assails the Judgment and Order dated 31st January 2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune whereby the Accused stand acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 The Supreme Court in its decision in the matter of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr. held as below: 'An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded' An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused
Procedural History: Complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act on 8th May 2006 before Trial Court -- Trial Court convicted accused on 1st March 2008 -- Accused appealed to Additional Sessions Court, Pune -- Additional Sessions Court acquitted accused on 31st January 2011 -- Complainant filed appeal before High Court on 19th December 2011 -- High Court reserved judgment on 13th January 2026 -- High Court pronounced judgment on 28th January 2026
