1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.163 OF 2006 (Madhav Vs. Deelip) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. G.D.Kale, Adv., for the applicant. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 6/8/2009 P.C.:- 1. The original complainant, being aggrieved by the order recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2005, dt.1.3.2006, thereby setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in STCC No.14782/2002, dt.16.3.2005, is in the present revision. 2. The Counsel for the complainant Madhav informs that the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is incorrect. The evidence of the Bank official Pandurang, to which reference is given by the learned Sessions Judge, could not have been so given as the evidence of the Bank Officer Pandurang was in relation to proving xerox copy of a letter Exh.47 which could not have been done. 2 3. The complainant came with a case of a loan to the extent of Rs.2,65,000/- advanced to the accused ( respondent herein) for which there was a cheque dt.16.8.2002 bearing Cheque No.11947, issued by the accused(respondent) and since it was not honoured, the prosecution as indicated above. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on analysis of the evidence found that, by virtue of the rebuttal to the presumption available to the accused, it was such rebuttal evidence given by the accused by examination of himself and witness of the Bank Pandurang Vitthal Gunale, it is established that the cheque in question was given in blank somewhere in 1996 and since it was not returned by the complainant, a grievance was made to the Bank by letter which has been acknowledged by the Bank on 30th August, 1996 ( Exh.47). Since there was such a letter, it is obvious, the cheque could not have been issued or presented in the year 2002, to be honoured for any so called subsisting legal liability. 5. That apart, the statutory notice issued by the complainant was dealt with same defense as the accused was coining that he had, indeed, issued a blank signed cheque in the year 1994, for which demands were made and same has been used. Having received such reply below Exh.42, it was minimum expectation from the complainant to have dealt with 3 the same, refuting the allegations. No evidence is adduced to indicate that the assertions of the accused are basically false or contrary to the facts. 6. The improvements made by the complainant of handing over the amount in presence of 3/4 witnesses have been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge as names of such persons are not reflected in the complaint. The observations of the learned Sessions Judge, in the set of above facts, cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal, requiring any interference. The revision lacks merits. It is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/163-06crra