: 1 : A-717-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 717 OF 2011 Murlidhar Chimaji Lekurwale .. Applicant v/s. Kashinath Shankar Jagtap & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Sachin Punde for the applicant Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for State ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 7th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The respondent faced trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in S.T.C.C. No. 495 of 2004. The learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent of the said charge by order dated 19th April, 2011. The applicant being the original complainant has filed this appeal. The application for leave to file appeal is filed. 2. I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Punde appearing on behalf of the applicant. The applicant has approached before the trial Court with : 2 : A-717-11=.doc the case that the sum of Rs.4,10,000/- was advanced by the applicant to the respondent and to pay of the said liability, the respondent accused executed a cheque in favour of the complainant, which got dishonoured and that is how the complaint came to be filed. The complainant has given evidence. The respondent accused has not been able to give appropriate explanation for the issuance of the cheque and to that extent, the respondent has not been able to discharge his burden as set out in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. In the normal course, the complainant would have been entitled to an order in his favour but in the complaint, the complainant has not disclosed the transaction of the loan made in favour of the respondent accused so far as the income tax affairs are concerned. Non-disclosure of the transaction in the income tax returns is fatal to the applicant and that is why the final result of acquittal is required to be accepted. In view of the above, there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 19th April, 2011. 3. The application is dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)