IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 908/2009 (Rajesh Umakant Patil vs. Bhagwat Bajirao Galbale) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 17 th JULY, 2009 Heard Shri P.R.Puri, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri R.D.Wakode, Advocate, for Respondent. The applicant has filed this application for leave to file appeal to challenge the acquittal of the respondent by J.M.F.C. Special Court, Amravati, for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court. It is difficult to see the possible guilt of the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the findings of the trial Court as regards non-service of statutory notice to the respondent is not correct as the notice was issued both under postal certificate as well as by Regd. Post. The registered post notice was unclaimed by the respondent and therefore, the notice needs to be held as served on the respondent. As such, this is a fit case to grant leave to file appeal. The reasons recorded by the trial Court in this connection perused. No doubt, there is no sufficient discussion as regards UPC notice. Fact remains that this aspect does not seem to be seriously raised before the trial Court. As regards the non-service of the notice which came to be served by registered post, the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court do not seem to be perverse. The learned trial Judge has rightly pointed out that the complainant was required to examine the postman to throw light on the discrepancies about the endorsements on the envelop. The adverse inference is, therefore, justified. As regards the consideration of the merits, learned counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed out that considering the nature of the employment of the applicant, it may not be possible for him to lend the amount of Rs.97,000 in cash. The learned counsel for the respondent has also brought to the notice of this Court the difference between the specimen signature of the respondent recorded with the bank and the signature appearing on the cheque. It is difficult to disagree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent in this regard. Both the certified copies presented by the learned counsel for the respondent are taken on record. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is not possible to grant leave to file appeal. As such application for grant of leave to appeal as well as appeal filed by the applicant/appellant, are rejected. JUDGE Rvjalit.