1 Cri-A-5256-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5256 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 Mr. Amarjeet Sujansingh Rajpal ... Applicant (Orig. complainant) vs. 1. Mr. Umesh Kesharimal Rathi ) 2. State of Maharashtra ). Respondent (No.1 - orig. accused) Mr. N.V.Vachalekar, i/b. N.V.Vachalekar & Co.,Advocates, for the applicant. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP,Advocate for the respondent No.2 - State . CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 2nd September, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent No.1. Perused the impugned judgment and the other documents. 2. The application is filed by the original complainant seeking leave to prefer appeal against acquittal for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the applicant, he had advanced amount of Rs.5 lakh as hand loan to the accused/respondent No.1 and towards repayment of that 2 Cri-A-5256-10.sxw money, he had issued three cheques dated 4.11.2009. Two cheques were for Rs. 1,50,000/- each and the third was for Rs.2 lakh. The said cheques were dishonoured. Inspite of service of statutory notice, payment was not made by the accused. According to the accused, the complainant was dealing in second-hand Skoda cars and talk was going on for sale of a Skoda car. Therefore, he had handed over three cheques to the complainant for giving the said cheques to the owner of the car, as soon as the deal would be completed. However, the deal did not materialise and the cheques were misused. The trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on three grounds. Firstly, though the amount on the cheque was written in the handwriting of the accused and he had admittedly signed the same, the name of the complainant as payee and the date were not written by him. They were written later on by the complainant. Secondly, even though the complainant admitted that he had submitted the income-tax returns regularly, he has not shown the amount of Rs.5 lakh given to the accused in his returns. Thirdly, he has no documents to show that the amount was actually paid by him to the accused as hand loan. Even if for a moment, it is believed that the payment was made in cash without obtaining any receipt, there is no proper explanation on the first two counts. In view of this, it cannot be said that the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is per-se wrong or perverse. It is settled position of law that the appellate Court will not interfere merely because on re-appreciation of the 3 Cri-A-5256-10.sxw evidence, a different view, other than the one taken by the trial Court, is also possible. Therefore, I do not find any reason to grant leave to prefer appeal. 3. In the result, the leave is refused. Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)