1 APPLN-3697-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3697OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 Shri Dattatrey Vitthal Teli ... Applicant (Orig. complainant) vs. 1. Sadvelkar Marketing ) 2. The State of Maharashtra ) Respondents Mr.Sandeep C.Kekane, i/b. U.B.Nighot,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.Sachin Gite, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the respondent No.2 – State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 12th October, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and the evidence. 2. According to the applicant, who is original complainant, because of cordial relations and old business relation, he had advanced amount of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent/accused from time to time and for repayment, the accused had 2 APPLN-3697-10.sxw issued a cheque of Rs.1 lakh in his favour. That cheque was dishonoured and in spite of service of notice, the accused failed to make payment. According to the accused, his uncle was to make some payment to one Korgaonkar and his his uncle was not having cheque, he was asked by his uncle to issue a blank cheque to Korgaonkar. Korgaonkar was paid the amount but that cheque was misused and the present applicant filled in the blanks and filed false case. 3. The trial Court noted that the complainant had not produced any document to show that he had actually made payment. There was no entry in his account books about the payment to the accused. The contents of the cheque were in different ink from the signature on the cheque. There was overwriting in the date as well as the figure of the amount of cheque. In view of these circumstances, the trial Court found that the complainant had failed to prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable liability. The learned Counsel for the complainant contends that he had examined the witness to establish that the accused had given that cheque to the complainant. 4. It is settled position of law that if two views are reasonably possible, the appellate Court will not interfere in the view taken by the trial Court while acquitting the accused. In the present case, in view of the facts noted above, it 3 APPLN-3697-10.sxw cannot be said that the view taken by the trial Court was not reasonably possible. Therefore, I do not see any justification to grant leave to prefer appeal as it will be a futile exercise. 5. Therefore, leave to prefer appeal is hereby refused. Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)