( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2998 OF 2009 Vijay s/o Gulabrao More APPLICANT VERSUS Rangnath s/o Vitthalrao Warule RESPONDENT ..... Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicant. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 30th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. I have perused the impugned judgement of acquittal whereby the respondent is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The case of the applicant was that he gave loan of Rs. 60,000/- on 05-05-2008 for period of one month to the respondent who agreed to repay the same without any interest. Allegedly, on 26-06-2008, the respondent ( 2 ) issued a cheque for Rs. 60,000/-. The cheque was dishonoured when presented to the Bank. Though demand notice was served on the respondent, yet, he did not comply with the same. The defence of the respondent was that he had given a blank signed cheque to one of his relatives by name Pradeep Hare who happens to be close friend of the complainant. There took place some dispute between his son and said Pradeep Hare. The cheque was misused thereafter by said Pradeep Hare through the complainant and a false case was filed against him though there was no money transaction between him and the complainant (applicant). The learned Magistrate considered testimony of the complainant of the probabilities. Though the complainant (applicant) stated that he was on friendly terms with the respondent, yet, he was unable to give the reasons for such friendly relation. The respondent (accused) is aged about 60 years whereas the applicant (complainant) is aged about 28 years. It is not that merely because of such age gap, there could not be friendship, yet, the more convincing evidence was required to be adduced to establish that such friendship was such that the amount ( 3 ) could be lent by the applicant (complainant). The complainant was unable to describe whether during May, 2008 to November, 2008, the respondent was hospitalized for treatment. The transaction of money lending was was also not substantiated in any other manner. The defence was probabalized by the respondent and as such, the order of acquittal cannot be faulted with. Consequently, the criminal application is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln2998-09