1 Cri-Applns-3625-3624 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.3625 of 2009 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2009 Housabai Umra Girigosavi since deceased Vimal Umraogiri Gosavi & Applicant (Orig. Complainant) v/s. 1.Naganath @ Nagesh Balasaheb Mohite & anr. & Respondents (Orig. Accused) A N D Criminal Application No.3624 of 2009 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2009 Vimal Umraogiri Gosavi ... ... Applicant (Orig. Complainant) v/s. 1. Naganath @ Nagesh Balasaheb Mohite & anr. & Respondents (Orig. Accused) Mr.Girish Paryani for Applicant Mr.Nitin Dhumal for Res.No.1. Smt.A.A. Mane, APP for State. ------ 2 Cri-Applns-3625-3624 CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 25th April 2011 P.C. : 1. These are the two applications against acquittal in a prosecution lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Parties are purchaser and seller of land. Their cases are different and brought out in their two Notices dated 19th August 2006 and 6th October 2006. The actual consideration for which the sale-deed was executed is the aspect in dispute. Two cheques, which came to be dishonoured, are stated to have been issued for Rs.3 Lakhs and Rs.4 Lakhs by the accused. The accused contended, and that case is accepted by the learned trial Judge, that they were for security. If that was so, a mention about the issue of the cheques for that amount in the notices given by the accused himself prior to the deposit of the cheques cannot be explained. That aspect will have to be considered in the appeal when it would have to be seen that they were for security only. The transaction is stated to be for Rs.1.25 Lakhs which is the amount mentioned in the document. The accused relies upon an Agreement dated 15th February 2006 which was prior to the agreement between the other parties for a 3 Cri-Applns-3625-3624 part of the suit land to show that that was for Rs. 85,000/-. If part of the total consideration is mentioned in the agreement between these parties, similar such part would have been mentioned in the earlier agreement. That agreement has not been proved in the trial by the accused. All these aspects, therefore, require reconsideration. 2. Leave to appeal is granted. 3. Both the appeals to come up for admission on 14th June 2011. 4. Advocate for the accused waives service. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)