1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2525 OF 2009. Rashtrasant Acharya Anand Rishiji Maharaj Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd.Sangamner through its Manager, Shri Dadasaheb Dimaji Bide ... Applicant. Versus Ramakant Ashok Wede ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.K.Shinde, advocate for the applicant. Mr.Subhash Gaikwad, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 06.10.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The applicant seeks leave to appeal. 3. The Respondent was tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate in STC No.378/2005, 2 for offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Respondent, allegedly, issued three (3) cheques on 10.3.2005, 20.3.2005 and 30.3.2005 respectively. The cheques were submitted to the Bank for encashment. The applicant is a Cooperative Credit Society. The cheques were dishonoured. A demand notice was duly issued and served on the Respondent. However, he did not comply with the notice. The Respondent examined himself. His defence before the trial Court was that he had issued blank cheques in favour of the applicant - Cooperative Society. He alleged that after receiving the demand notice, he deposited the entire amount with the applicant society. According to him, he was previously in the service of the applicant society and left the job. He declined to join the office of the applicant and, therefore, false case was instituted against him in order to harass. 4. Prima facie, it does not stand to reason that an employer will harass the employee because the latter has declined to join the service under the same employer. The very fact 3 that the Respondent asserted making of payments after receiving of the demand notice goes to show that there were financial dealings and he was liable to pay certain amounts for which the cheques were issued. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the authority to file the complaint was not legally proved and was improper. This aspect requires consideration. In view of the nature of reasoning ascribed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I am inclined to hold that this is a fit case in which leave to appeal deserves to be granted. 5. Leave granted. 6. Admit. 7. Call R & P. 8. Print dispensed with. 9. The applicant to furnish private paper book within twelve (12) weeks after the R & P is received. 4 10. Mr.Gaikwad, learned advocate waives service for the Respondent. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp252509