1 A IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1112 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Ramzan Ali Lal Mohd.Ansari .. Applicant V/s. Gayasul Haq Khan & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Diwalar Deivedi for the applicant. Mr.Anwar Landge h/f.Mr.Amin Solkar for the Respondents. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 13th JULY, 2009. P.C. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. It is the leave application to file an appeal against the acquittal of Respondent No.1 in the matter of dishonour of cheque of Rs.50,000/-. Perused the reasoning given by the Trial Magistrate. After hearing the submissions of rival parties and after going through the specific circumstances as to on two occasions said cheque for Rs.50,000/- was deposited with the banker of the complainant, it 2 appears that there was some communication from the complainant to Respondent No.1 accused as to dishonour of cheque for the first time and it was for insufficient funds. Such first dishonour was somewhere on 17th December, 2007 and intimation by the bank is of 18th December, 2007. Thereafter on 2nd time the cheque was deposited and this time the reason for non payment is “payment stopped by the drawer”. Such intimation was received by the complainant vide dishonour memo dated 5th January, 2008. Complaint came to be lodged on 1st March, 2008. Though, Respondent No.1 accused filed his affidavit in support of this, and was cross examined, there is nothing to ascertain as to on which day he came to know regarding theft of such single cheque. It is also significant to note that said cheque is initially payable to self and there is alteration making it payable to the complainant and such alterations and erasing the word self is signed by Respondent No.1 accused. It is not his defence that such signing in view of canceling of the endorsement of self, was not done by him. Admittedly, there is no complaint regarding theft of such cheque. In the opinion of this Court, these circumstances are significant enough to test the matter in appeal before this Court. 3. Curiously enough the trial Court was influenced by the defence of Respondent accused that there was no financial liability of the complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- to the accused and thereby there was failure on the part of the complainant to prove the initial liability. Moreover, the trial Court was influenced by the factum of not filing any 3 acknowledgment receipt so as to establish issuance of demand notice, for the reasons that such notice was sent through private courier. All the same considering the reasoning given by the trial Magistrate, in the opinion of this Court, the present leave petition is required to be allowed and the matter is required to be heard in appeal in order to ascertain the correctness and legality of the impugned Judgment and order of acquittal. Hence, leave petition is allowed. 4. Appeal is admitted. 5. Call for R & P. 6. With these directions, the leave petition is disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)