1 cri.appln 5547-2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5547 OF 2009 Pravinsinh Ishwara Mane ...Applicant VS. Suresh Ananda Mahajan & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Rahul Kulkarni for the Applicant. Mr.G.M. Savagave for Respondent No.1. Smt.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : APRIL 6, 2011 P.C :- 1 Heard. Perused the application, the annexures therewith viz. Notes of evidence and documents adduced in evidence and the impugned judgment. 2 The learned trial court acquitted the accused by accepting the defence that there was no legally enforcible debt or other liability to 2 cri.appln 5547-2009 sustain the transaction of cheque, in question. The learned trial court at paras 15 and 16 of its judgment observed thus :- 15)While rebutting the presumption led down by the provision of section 139 of N.I. Act, accused is referring some of the admissions given by the complainant when he was under cross-examination. In his cross-examination it is stated by the complainant that he has provided the hand loan facility to the persons by name Pravin, Sadhana, Anna, Narendra, Vitthal, Dilip, Sanjay, Saleman Thorat, L.B. Koli Sri, A.K. Khot, A.S. Kale, Mahesh More (Balaji), Ananda Patkari, Bhoikar Shinde, Shivaji Sangle, Subhash Kokane, Harun Mulla, Ambi, Bapu, Balu Sheikh and Arjun Kale. 15) Here if we take into consideration the above said list of the persons to whom it is the claim of the complainant that he has provided the hand 3 cri.appln 5547-2009 loan facility, then doubt started to generate that whether complainant is engaged in the business of money lending? The general of this doubt is natural because it appears not easily possible that a single person will provide the hand loan facility to the persons in such quantity. Here one can not ignore that the standard of the proof for the complainant is beyond all reasonable doubts while for accused it is up to the preponderance of probability. Here because of such number of the persons to whom complainant has provided the loan facility, accused appears as successfully displacing the presumption led down by the provision of section 139 of N.I. Act and due to that the burden is on the complainant to lead further evidence and to show that, the liability covered by the cheque in question was really existing on the accused. 3 On perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant, it is clearly revealed that there was 4 cri.appln 5547-2009 nothing credible to indicate that the accused was daily wage worker as mentioned in the alleged business of fabrication of the applicant and that he was given a hand loan from time to time. It is also clearly revealed that the applicant-complainant had advanced loans to several persons, the note of which was kept in the cash register. The learned trial court was, therefore, not in error to make the observations as aforesaid. Leave is, therefore, refused. 4 Application is disposed of, accordingly. (U.D. SALVI, J.)