1 appln.4648-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4648 OF 2010 Kisan Chetandas Agarwal ..Applicant. Vs. Shailesh Uttamchand Zeveri & Ors. ..Respondents. ----- Mr. V.S. Kapse, for the Applicant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State. ---- CORAM: M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. AUGUST 17, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kapse, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Perused the judgment, and record and proceedings. 3. The applicant is the original complainant in Criminal Case no. 15/S/1998 in the court no.18 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgam, Mumbai. Respondent nos.1 and 2 were prosecuted by the applicant in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2 appln.4648-2010 4. It is alleged that the respondents had taken the diamonds from the applicant on various occasions. The receipts popularly known as Zangad in diamond market were issued by the respondents in favour of the applicant. It was alleged that later on the respondents refused to return the diamonds or pay the value thereof. It is in these circumstances the case came to be filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate. 5. The process was issued. The evidence was recorded by the trial court, and the charge was framed. The case was finally heard, and resulted into the acquittal of the respondents. 6. The applicant has, therefore, moved this court for grant of leave under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to file an appeal against the order of acquittal. 7. In the course of the argument, Mr. Kapse, submitted that there was sufficient documentary evidence before the learned trial court to establish the charge. It was submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the documents already on record. 8. After having gone through the judgment and order, and the record, I find that opinion of hand-writing expert in respect of signatures on Zangad was taken. Therefore, it could not be said that the signatures had 3 appln.4648-2010 been proved. The other documents, which the applicant claimed to be in his possession, such as Income-Tax Return, books of accounts etc. were not produced. That has been discussed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in detail in his judgment. Mr. Kapse, the learned counsel has invited my attention to the fact that there was correspondence between the applicant, and the respondents in which the respondents had admitted that they had received the diamonds from the applicant, and they had prayed for time to pay the amount. It is seen that those documents have not been duly proved before the trial court. This issue has also been discussed by the learned trial court in detail. 9. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of the trial court. As such, this case is not fit for grant of leave to appeal. Hence, the application stands dismissed. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.)