* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 382 OF 2009 Gajanan Gorakhnath Jadhav .....Applicant/Orig.Accused V/s. 1. Pralhad Rajaram Chavan .....Respondent no.1/Orig.Complainant 2. The State of Maharashtra ......Respondent no.2 ======== Mr.Vinod Jadhav, adv.for applicant. Mr.Sagar Talekar, adv.for respondent no.1. Mr.S.V.Gajare, APP for State-respondent no.2. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 27TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. This criminal revision application arises out of the concurrent decision of conviction of the applicant under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. By the judgment and order dated 15th July 2009, the applicant was convicted of the offence and punished to suffer sentence of three months simple imprisonment and directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 357(3)CrPC to respondent no.1. The applicant preferred appeal against the judgment and order to the District Court, Satara. By the order dated 27th April 2009 the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed. * 2 * 3. The case of respondent no.1 is that the applicant, his close friend had requested for a handloan of Rs.1 lac. In order to help him, respondent no.1 collected money from his wife and relatives to the extent of Rs.95,000 and lent him on 31st August, 2005. At that time, the applicant and his wife executed a writing that the amount would be returned by 9th May 2006. Later, when respondent no.1 demanded money, the applicant issued the cheque in question to him. The cheque when presented for payment was dishonoured. Respondent no.1 sent a statutory notice to the applicant to which no reply was sent. During trial, respondent no.1 examined himself in support of the complaint. The applicant did not examine himself but examined a witness by name Vithal Jadhav. The defence of the applicant is of denial of loan. He also alleges that respondent no.1 is a money lender carrying on business of money lending without the necessary license. Both the courts on these counts have held against the applicant. It is also the defence of the applicant that the loan taken by him from respondent no.1 was infact of Rs.25,000/- which had been returned with interest of Rs.10,000/-. The cheque in question had been given by the applicant at the time of that loan which was not returned on repayment of loan but instead misused. 4. Respondent no.1 in his evidence deposed about the request of the applicant for the loan amount and collection of money by him from his wife and relatives and handing over of the amount to the applicant. He also deposed about the writing executed by the applicant and his wife acknowledging the loan with a promise to repay * 3 * the same. Though the applicant claims that the loan taken by him was only of Rs.25,000/-, he has not stepped into the witness box to give evidence of the same. His witness Vithal Jadhav deposed that the loan taken by the applicant was only of Rs.25,000/-. He stated that the loan was given in his presence. Since, the transaction of loan was with the applicant he ought to have examined himself. The evidence of Vithal Jadhav can only be corroborating evidence. There is no explanation given by the applicant for not examining himself and not bringing the best evidence before the court. Therefore, it must be held that the claim of the applicant that he had taken loan of Rs.25,000 and not Rs.95,000/- does stand established. Further evidence of Vithal Jadhav on this aspect is cryptic. He does not give details of the transactions like the date of the loan, the date of handing over cheque to respondent no.1 etc. 5. As regards the contention of the applicant that respondent no.1 carries on business of money lending without holding the necessary license for the purpose, witness Vithal Jadhav deposed that he had himself taken loan from respondent no.1 of Rs.25,000/- which was to be repaid at the interest of 10% p.a. He claimed at that time that respondent no.1 had taken two stamp papers of Rs.100/- and two blank cheques from him. However, the witness could not give particulars of either the stamps or the cheques. Then, he deposed that the amount was paid to respondent no.1 in the presence of one Vishwas Bhosale, who has not been examined in the case. In these circumstances, both the courts have rightly rejected the claim of the applicant and * 4 * arrived at the conclusion of conviction. The concurrent view taken by the courts below is a reasonable and possible view. There is no error or illegality in it. Therefore no interference is warranted with it. 6. Perusal of the judgments, the appeal memo before the lower appellate court, and the present revision application shows that the applicant has been making grievances against both the courts, the trial court, as well as, the appellate court as regards the opportunity afforded to him. It appears that the after the appeal was filed, the applicant was not attending it for some time. The matter was being adjourned from time to time. Finally on 26th February, 2009 he was granted a last chance. On the next date i.e. on 20th March, 2009 he once again asked for an adjournment which was granted on payment of costs of Rs.500/- and the matter came to be adjourned to 4th April, 2009. The applicant did not pay the costs of the adjournment but once again sought an adjournment, which was refused to him. The counsel for respondent no.1 was heard and matter posted for judgment. It appears that on 22nd April, 2009 the applicant filed an application for adjournment requesting the matter to be placed on the board on 27th April, 2009 on the ground that his advocate Mr.Katkar was unwell. On that day, the court was not sitting and the matter had already been adjourned to 27th April, 2009. On 27th April 2009 one more application was presented by the advocate for the applicant, making reference to the additional grounds of appeal. The application was rejected as by that time the court had * 5 * already dictated the order and dismissed the appeal. Since, non- consideration of the application has been vehemently agitated by the counsel for the applicant, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the same so as to complete the hearing to the applicant. The application raises additional grounds of appeal as point no.1 to point no.21. It alleges that the approach of the trial court was erreneous and illegal. The trial court did not give “sufficient chance and proper opportunity” to the applicant to adduce further evidence. The statement under Section 313 CrPC recorded was not proper as the questions were not properly formulated. There was no specific question put to the applicant as to whether he wanted to examine himself on oath. It is to be noted here that the applicant was throughout represented by his lawyer. The applicant did examine a witness on his behalf and for the reasons best known to him failed to examine himself. In these circumstances, this Court finds no substance in the application. Considering the background of the manner in which the appeal was being prosecuted, the application was nothing but an attempt to gain further time. It is clear from the judgments that the applicant was afforded opportunity by both the trial court, as well as, the appellate court. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]