1 Cri.Appln. 1784.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1784 OF 2010 Gopaldas Khanumal Kukreja ... APPLICANT VERSUS Ramesh Murlidhar Lakhote ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri Pawan Pawar, Advocate h/f S.P. Brahme, Advocate for applicant Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for respondent sole ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 23rd August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused application and the impugned Judgment. 2. The learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the cheque in question was not drawn / signed by the accused but was signed by his son Gopal, who was not made party to the complaint as an co-accused. 3. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 reads as under :- 2 Cri.Appln. 1784.10 “Section :- 138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 2["a term which may extend to two year"], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. (b) The payee or the holder induce course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer, of the cheque, 3["within thirty days"] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheques as unpaid, and (c) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.” In this case, Gopal son of accused, who had signed the cheque, was not joined as an accused in the complaint, as contemplated Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The leaned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, therefore, made 3 Cri.Appln. 1784.10 no error in acquitting the accused Ramesh Murlidhar Lakhote who had not drawn the cheque in question. There being no merit, the application stands dismissed and therefore, leave is refused. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM*Aug.11