IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3504 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3504 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3504 OF 2007 Rajendra Ramprasad Sharma .... Applicant versus Santosh Banarasi Chauhan & anr...... Respondent. Mr.Vilas B. Topkir for the applicant. Mr. P.A.Pol APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. This is an application seeking special leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal. The applicant entered into an agreement with the respondent for sale of a vehicle. The agreement is in writing. Perusal of the said agreement reveals that the consideration was agreed to Rs.2,01,000/-. Out of the said amount of consideration, Rs.30,000/- was paid in cash on 3-10-2002 and for a payment of Rs.10,000/- a cheque was issued bearing no. 024326 dated 10-10-2002. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured. With a view to secure the balance amount of Rs.1,61,000/- by way of security, a cheque bearing No. 024327 was issued by the respondent in favour of the present applicant. The amount for which the cheque by way of security was issued, was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs.3600/- for a period of 45 months. A case has already been filed and the same is pending for dishonour of cheque for a sum of Rs.10,000/- dated 10/10/200. Pending the said case, the present petitioner deposited the cheque for Rs.1,61,000/- which was tendered by way of security, and dishonour of the said cheque, complaint under section 138 of N.I.Act came to be filed. The respondent has been acquitted by the trial court by holding that the cheque in the sum of Rs. 1,61,000/- came to be dishonoured, was not for legally enforceable debt or liability, but the same was by way of security. It is the case of the present petitioner that the terms of the agreement were varied and modified by oral contract. The said case has not been accepted by the trial court. 2. Perused the judgment. The same does not call for any interference by this court, Hence application seeking special leave to file appeal is rejected. ....