IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.287 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 ISMT Ltd. .. Applicants V/s. M/s.Bhaatia Mini Sping & Engg. Co.(P) Ltd.& Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Niranjan Mundari i/b. M/s.India Law Alliance for the Applicants. Mr.Yashpal Thakur i/b.Paras Kuhad & Associates for Respondent No.1 and 2. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : APRIL 23rd , 2009. P.C. Heard rival submissions for some time. 1 2. Both the leave applications are being disposed of as the issue involved is same between the same parties, though, certain facts are different concerning different cheque amounts. Both the original complaints filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were disposed of by common Judgment and order. 3. Both the leave applications are preferred by original complainant company for allowing it to file appeal against the acquittal of the Respondent original accused in the matter of 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act proceeding. On perusing the record and evidence of witnesses for the complainant, it is apparent that admittedly he had no authority to give evidence on behalf of the complainant payee company, and in fact such authority and power of attorney was given in favour of various other officers whose names appeared in the evidence. Reportedly, such officers were not examined and only said officer by name Shri Padmanabhan came to be examined and cross examined. Secondly, it is a factual position that during his cross examination, he had specifically admitted the repayment of the amounts which are covered by the cheques which were dishonoured and for which two criminal complainants came to be lodged. Though, it is the contention of the complainant that total goods worth more than Rs.19 lakhs were purchased by the accused company, some other payments were still outstanding, however, 2 once it is admitted position of the witness of the complainant himself that the amounts for the cheques, which were dishonoured, have already been paid, there cannot be a legally enforceable liability as rightly held by the trial Magistrate. 4. Considering the above circumstance and considering that in both the counts as to no authority for the witness to file the compliant and to give evidence and that there was no enforceable liability due to acceptance of the repayment of the amounts covering the cheques, there is nothing to again reagitate the matter and allow the present leave application. 5. In the result, leave applications are rejected and accordingly disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) 3