1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 913 OF 2010 ( Rajesh Badrinarayan Laddhad Vs. Shersingh Shyamrao Yadav & Ano.) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri P. S. Khubalkar Adv for applicant. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. DATED: 21st JULY, 2011. . Heard Shri Khubalkar learned counsel for the appellant. Appellant was the original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No. 108 of 2005 decided on 31.08.2010 by 7th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. Appellant is dealing in business of cement, in the name and style of N. K. Enterprises. It is a proprietary concern. Respondent no.1 is proprietor of respondent no. 2. Respondents used to purchase cement from the appellant. To clear outstanding dues the respondents issued two cheques bearing two different dates. Each was for an amount of Rs. 13,000/-. When they were presented for encashment, they were dishonored. This was followed with the mandatory notice and then filing of the complaint. 2 On perusal of the judgment delivered by the learned Magistrate, it appears that respondents came with the defence that whatever business dealings he had, it were only with the brother of the appellant. While denying the liability, the respondents agreed to the fact that cheques were issued by them, however, they were blank and were misused by the employees of N. K. Enterprises. Respondent no.1 did not examine himself nor any witness in his defence. On perusal of para 8 of the judgment impugned, it appears that learned Magistrate undertook exercise of examining bills/invoices ignoring the provisions of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It did not strike to the learned Magistrate that only after calculating outstanding dues, the respondents must have issued the cheques to discharge their liability. In that light of the matter and according to me, arguable points are involved in this appeal, hence leave as prayed for is granted. APPEAL: Admit . Action under Section 390 Criminal Procedure Code. Bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5000/- be issued, returnable after eight weeks. JUDGE 3 svk From the date of taking charge i.e. from 17.03.2011 till 06.05.2011 His Lordship Hon'ble Shri Justice M.N. Gilani was sitting at High Court Bombay.