Sns 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.900 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2011 Mr. Nirmal K. Parmar ..Applicant/Appellant. v/s. Mr. Popatlal S. Mehta & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Uday Jaguste, adv. for the Applicant/Appellant. Mr. K.H.Holambe Patil for the respondent no.1. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 20th September, 2011 PC : 1 Heard. 2 Application is filed by the original complainant seeking leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal by the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.154 of 2009 whereby the appeal of the accused against the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was allowed. 3 The complainant is related to the accused/respondent and according to him, he had advanced an amount of Rs.15 lakh as hand loan to the accused. The accused, for repayment of that amount, issued 15 cheques of Rs.1 lakh each towards the repayment of the said loan amount. Cheques were dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. In spite of Sns 2 service of statutory notice, the accused failed to make payment. 4 Signatures of the accused on the said cheques are not disputed. However, according to the accused, the complainant being Chartered Accountant used to manage his accounts. According to him to make certain adjustments, he had obtained his signatures on the blank cheques, which were misused. The Complainant had never advanced any loan to him. The Sessions Court noted that though the complainant is Chartered Accountant, he had not shown amount of Rs.15 lakh as hand loan in his accounts or in his income-tax returns. He has also not produced any evidence about the payment of that money to the accused. Complainant tried to contend that he had taken money from some of his friends and that amount was given to the accused for hand loan. For this also, there is no evidence. In view of these circumstances, Sessions Court found that the defence of the accused appears to be probable and in the result, accused was acquitted. 5 Firstly, reasons given by the Sessions Court appear to be quite rational and justified. Secondly, it is well settled position of law that even if two different view are reasonably possible , the appellate Court will not interfere in the order of acquittal. The Appellate Court will not interfere in the order of acquittal unless the order of acquittal is based on utterly wrong findings or perverse or per-se illegal. I do not find any such things in the Sns 3 present matter. Therefore, no ground is made out to grant leave to prefer appeal. 6 In the result, leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal is refused and the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)