Mr.Gorakhnath Tukaram Thorat v. Mr.Ravindra Narayan Wadkar & Anr.

Mr.Gorakhnath Tukaram Thorat .. .. Applicant (Orig. Complainant) v/s.

#1. Mr.Ravindra Narayan Wadkar & anr. .. Respondents (Orig. Accused) None for Applicant. Smt.A.A. Mane, APP for State. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 27th April 2011 P.C. :

#1. This application is for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai dated 1st April 2009 acquitting the accused. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, had convicted the accused under order dated 13th June 2007.

#2. The case of the Applicant, who was the original complainant in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the 2 Cri-Appln-1579 Negotiable Instruments Act, was that he had paid from time to time Rs.2,60,000/- to the accused to secure admission of his daughter in D.Y. Patil Medical College. It is the contention of the accused that this is a private medical college. Admissions are through the management quota also. Money paid is not as bribe to secure back-door admission. The admission having not been obtained, the money has to be returned. The Applicant has relied upon three dishonoured cheques constituting the above amount. It is for the Applicant to show that the amount is paid under a legally enforceable debt. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the object of the agreement, for which the amounts were given. He has considered that the transaction would be void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act since it was paid to the accused who was not connected with the management of the college and, therefore, would tantamount to secure back-door admission for his daughter. The learned Judge has, therefore, considered that the object of the transaction was unlawful and the consideration paid for such an object became unlawful. The appeal from that order has long been delayed. Delay has been condoned since March

#2010. The application for leave to appeal came up on various dates for hearing and has been adjourned from time to time on the application of the Applicant himself. Respondent No.1 has never been served and has never appeared. The Advocate for the Applicant has failed to appear even after the matter has been kept back. The impugned judgment shows the aforesaid consideration of the learned Judge. 3 Cri-Appln-1579

#3. Leave to appeal is refused.

#4. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)