1 40-3554-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3554 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs. Sopan R. Pawar .. Respondent. Mr. S.A.Shaikh, for the Applicant. Mr. S.V. Kotwal i/b. Mr. M.S. Mohite, for the Respondent. CORAM : N.D.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 4th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both the sides. 2 I have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Court. Accused who is Respondent was earlier convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year for cheating and fined of Rs.2000/­. The said conviction was, however, challenged by the Accused­Respondent in Appeal and the same was allowed. Against the said order, the present Appeal is preferred with leave. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order of quashing of order passed by the Court. The Appellate Court in its judgment para no.16 2 40-3554-09.sxw has discussed the evidence and more and more and insisted on corroboration by independent evidence, such as documentary evidence. 3 Admittedly, there is evidence of four witnesses including the complainant who was cheated under the offences of cheating especially when money is passed from one hand to other hand for good or bad promise when the complainant alleged fraud. His testimony is required to be scanned in order to prove the charge and to discover the guilt of the accused. In a criminal case, especially in a trial for cheating or fraud, these factors are required to be taken in to consideration, because trial court has an opportunity to observe the demurrer of the witnesses and appreciate the evidence recorded by him which is no doubt subject to further scrutiny by the Appellate Court. Therefore, at this stage, suffice to say that Applicant has made out case for leave to appeal. Hence, leave granted. 4 Admit. 5 Steps to be taken under section 390 of Cr.P.C. (N.D.DESHPANDE, J.)