1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1878 of 2009 ALONGWITH WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1879 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2009 OF 2009 Bhavana Rajendra Shah .. Applicant. vs. Maya Premkumar Choube(Chaturvedi) & Anr. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Rupesh A.Zade i/by Rahul Kate for the applicant. Mr. Pratap Patil for respondent no.1. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. ... CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATE : 10th July 2009. P.C.: Heard rival submissions for some time in all the three leave petitions. These petitions are filed by the original complainant to prefer appeals against the acquittal of respondent no.1-original accused no.1 in the matter for offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 2. It appears that there was some partnership business between the complainant women and accused no.1 women. However, when said partnership came to an end, a sort of undertaking was given by accused no.1 that she will pay Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven lac fifty thousand) to the 2 complainant and said amount shall be paid by cheques drawn from the bank account in the name her husband i.e. accused no.2. Accordingly three cheques, of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two lacs fifty thousand) each were given to the complainant. Said cheques were dishonoured and hence three complaints came to be lodged for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 ( The Act for short) against both the accused husband and wife. By the Judgments and Orders, accused no.2, the drawer of the cheque, was convicted. Separate appeas are preferred against said conviction before the Sessions Court at Karad. It may also mentioned that for enhancement of the punishment awarded against accused no.2, separate criminal revision applications were also preferred by the present applicant-original complainant before same Sessions Court, Karad. 3. Present three leave petitions are challenging the acquittal of respondent no.1-original accused no.1-wife of convicted accused no.2. Main submission canvased on behalf of the applicant by learned advocate Shri Rupesh A. Zade is that as per Section 141 of the Act, the wife-respondent no. 1 is also responsible and she can be roped and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Act, though she is not the drawer of the cheques. In support of 3 this submission, shelter of the following authority is taken : 2008 ALL MR(Cri)2528 V.R.Kingaonkar, J. The Dadasaheb Rawal Co-op. Bank of Dondaicha Ltd., Dist.Dhule Vs. Ramesh s/o. Jawrilal Jain & Ors. Pointing out the observations in the said cited decision in paragraph no. 11, it is submitted that a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) can be considered as association of individuals and such word association of individuals appear in Section 141 of the Act. Considering the matter at hand, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be construed that the husband and wife i.e. accused nos.1 & 2 constitute a Hindu Undivided Family. 4. In the result in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to entertain present leave petition and to reagitate the matter in appeal before this Court and hence all the three leave petitions stand dismissed and accordingly disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI,J.)