1 Cri-A-1763-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRININAL APPLICATION NO. 1763 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2010 Shri K.C.Makhija ... Appellant (Orig. complainant) vs. 1. Shri Ashraf Nathani ... Orig.accused No.4) 2. The State of Maharashtra Respondents Mr. Murtzaa M.Najmi, i/b. Mr. Vinod Sharma,Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Shamia Sayed,Advocate for the respondent No.1 Smt. P.P.Shinde, APP, for the respondent No.2 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 8th September, 2011. P.C. 1. The application is filed by the original complainant seeking leave to prefer appeal against acquittal of the respondent No.1, who was accused No.4 in Criminal Case No.6530/SS/2005 filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. To state in brief, it is the case of the complainant that accused No.1 - M/s. Classic Bakers Pvt.Ltd. was supplied certain goods by the complainant and towards discharge of their liability, accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were the directors, had issued the cheques. Accused No.4 (Shri Nathani) was also a director of the 2 Cri-A-1763-10.sxw company. It was contended that accused Nos. 2 to 4, being directors were looking after and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the accused No.1 company. The cheques were issued on 10.4.2006. On presentation to the drawee Bank, they were returned unpaid with the remark "stop payment". Inspite of service of notice, the payment was not made and the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. 3. The trial Court, after hearing evidence, convicted the accused No.1 company and accused Nos.2 and 3 who were signatories of the cheque and also directors of the company and also awarded sentence. The trial Court noted in para 17 that accused No.4 had informed by letter dated 7.3.2006 addressed to the complainant that he had resigned from the post of the director of the company since 15.2.2006. Receipt of that letter is not disputed even by the complainant. The complainant did not produce any evidence to show that on 10.4.2006, when the cheques were issued or when the cheques were presented for encashment ad were dishonoured or when the notice was served and inspite of that the company had failed to make payment, the accused No.4 was director of the company. In view of this, I find no substance in the present application. 4. Therefore, leave to prefer appeal is refused. The application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)