1 appln 476 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.476 OF 2011 Mohd Saeed Abdul Razzaque Ansari .. Applicant. -versus Mr. Parvez Mushtaque Alam Ansari .. Respondent. Mr. Tejas Dande, for the Applicant. Mrs. A. S. Pai, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 17th June, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against acquittal of the respondent recorded by the learned 7th Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai, reversing the judgment of conviction, recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. The applicant claims that he was working as Cutting Master and sampler with the accused. The accused used to pay him salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. Salary for 12 months was not paid. In addition to that the accused who is employer made him to incur expenses of Rs.1,16,000/-for paying to the other employees of the accused. The applicant also claims to have advanced a sum of Rs.58,000/- to his master i.e. accused. He claims to have further advanced a sum of Rs.9,000/- to one Dildar Master on behalf of accused. In view of this, the 2 appln 476 of 2011 accused is supposed to have issued cheques which were bounced. 2. The accused took defence that the applicant was known to him. The accused wanted some loan. The applicant agreed to secure that loan from one Hirachand, who has not been examined at the trial and the accused was made to issue different cheques for an amount of Rs.2,36,000/- in favour of the applicant as security for repayment of loan which was to be given. The loan was not eventually given, but the cheques handed over as security were presented and bounced. 3. The learned trial Magistrate, found that the amounts were paid by the applicant on behalf of accused for which accused issued cheques. But the Sessions Judge held otherwise. It cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the accused had issued those cheques as security and not for any legally enforceable debt or liability, since it could be difficult to accept that a servant would be paying salary on behalf of his master and advancing money to his master. The findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse calling for any interference. Leave reused. Appeal dismissed. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)