1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.306/2009 Suhas(Subhash) Maruti Tarlekar APPLICANT (Ori.Accused no.2) VS Ankur Textile, Proprietor , Aditi Trust, through Managing Trustee Shri.Arunkumar Madhavprasad Goyanka through Power of Attorney & Anr. RESPONDENTS Mr.N.J.Patil for the Applicant Ms.S.V.Gajare,APP for State Mr.Y.S.Ingale for Res.no.1 CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE :4th SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C. . Heard finally by consent. This Revision application is filed against the judgment and order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji thereby confirming the judgment of conviction dated 25/3/2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C.Ichalkaranji . 2] A complaint was filed against one Nandini Tarlekar and present applicant/accused for dishonour of cheque of Rs. 43,890/- which was issued on 21/2/1996.This cheque was given against the purchase of cotton yarn from the complainant. The learned subordinate Judges have held that all the ingredients of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were proved. 2 3] The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that it was bearer cheque and accused no.2 though had issued the cheque the goods were purchased by accused no.1 and accused nos.1 & 2 were not running the business jointly and the learned Trial Judge has erroneously considered the evidence of the complainant and has observed that accused no.2 was doing the business of purchase and sale of cloth. It is further submitted that accused no.2 has issued the impugned cheque against the debt of accused no.1. Accused no.1 is acquitted and therefore,accused no.2 cannot be held responsible for this transaction. 4] The transaction has taken place in the year 1993-94 . No illegality is found in the concurrent findings of the two courts. No point of law or any grave error was pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant. No ground is made out to admit the revision. The evidence tendered by the original complainant is sufficient to hold that there was joint business and the applicant was responsible for the issuance and dishonour of the cheque. Accused no.2 has signed the said cheque. Hence the learned Judge has rightly relied on the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is not rebutted by the applicant.It is to be noted that the accused has deposited Rs. 25,000/- during the pendency of the complaint. Hence the Revision Application stands rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)