Aneet Coutinho vs Roaque Coutinho

T.V. Nalawade, J.—The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No. 39/2010, which was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji. The appeal was filed by the present respondent no. 1 against the judgment and order of Criminal Case No. 150/2002 which was pending in the Court of JMFC, Panaji. The private complaint was filed by the appellant for offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned JMFC, Panaji convicted the respondent no. 1 and he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Learned Additional Sessions judge has set aside this decision of conviction and sentence. Both the sides are heard.

There is allegation against the respondent that with the intention to cheat, he made an agreement with the complainant, appellant and he took the custody of a motor vehicle belonging to the complainant. It is contended that towards payment of consideration of amount of Rs. 1.9 lac three cheques were given by the complainant. These cheques bounced. Complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed initially, but in that complaint the accused came to be acquitted as the cheques were drawn by his wife on her own account. Then the complaint for offence u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code came to be filed. It appears that Civil Suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount was also filed, but it came to be dismissed as the limitation period had expired.

The learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case reported as Prakash Tarachand Sakhre Vs. Ashok Pundloikrao Wajge and Another, . She took this Court to para no. 10 of the decision. This is all together on different point like passing of ownership in respect of movable property.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal by holding that the intention to deceive on the day of transaction is not proved by the complainant. This Court has gone through the copy of agreement. The evidence shows that agreement took place on 9/02/1999 and the custody of the vehicle was handed over on that date, but the cheques bearing dates as 30/05/1999, 30/06/1999 and 30/07/1999 of different amounts were given. The evidence of the complainant shows that when the cheques bounced he contacted the accused and informed that the cheques bounced. Evidence shows that on that day the accused was ready to make the payment. In view of this circumstance, there is clear probability that there was no intention to deceive on the date of transaction. The view taken by the learned Trial Court is a plausible view. This Court holds that there is no case for interfering in the decision given by the Trial Court. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.