1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No.2968 of 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. The application is for leave to appeal. The applicant alleged that he lent amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty five thousand) as hand loan to the Respondent. It was agreed that the Respondent would execute a bond and shall execute two post dated cheques to secure the repayment. On 30.3.2007, the amount was accordingly given to the Respondent. The Respondent issued the two cheques for Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) and Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand) respectively showing post dates 12.4.2007 and 15.6.2007 respectively. The cheques were dishonoured. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court. The evidence indicated that the appellant and the Respondent started a sweetmeat shop styled as "Swapna Sweet Mart" as a partnership business. The trial Court noticed that for about six (6) months, the business was running properly and the profits earned were being distributed between the complainant and the Respondent. The defence of the Respondent was that in 2006, he was required to go to Gujarat and then gave 3/4 blank cheques signed by him. to the appellant. The business of the Sweetmeat shop was lateron closed. The accounts were settled. It was noticed that the amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) was due towards the appellant (complainant). The evidence on record revealed that the story regarding hand loan transaction was unacceptable. The agreement (Exh.65) would show that there was partnership business between the parties. The Respondent examined D.W.Ramesh Hale, in whose premises the Sweetmeat shop was started. He corroborated the case of the defence. The learned Magistrate noticed that had it been a hand loan transaction, the cheque could have been submitted to the Bank immediately on the given date. However, it was transaction of partnership business and probably the cheque was given to the complainant towards the required investment in the business. In this view of the matter,the applicant failed to prove the existing debt or liability and as such the impugned judgment and order can not be faulted with. Leave refused. The appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.10.09.2009. asp/office/Crapp2968.09