1 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1618 OF 2009 Vijaykumar Maruti Jakkani.. Applicant. vs. Madhav Eknath Warkhandkar ..Respondent. Mr C.R. Mishra a/w S.V.Naik, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. ,for the State. CORAM: : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATE : 7th July, 2009. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions at length. It is the application for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondent No. 1- original accused for the offence arising out of the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881( the N.I.Act for short). 2. It is a matter of dishonour of cheque for Rs. 7,08,000/-. The said cheque is dated 2.3.2006. Perused the reasoning given by the Trial Court while acquitting the Respondent No.1. Also perused the notes of evidence. 2 3. It is admitted position that cheque which was dishonoured is from the Account No.2066 and the said account is maintained with Dena Bank, Lalbaug Branch, Mumbai. It is in the name of one Eknath Ramchandra Warkhandkar. Whereas the present respondent is one Madhav Eknath Warkhandkar. Allegedly, it is the case of the complainant that in all four instalments of different dates he gave loan without interest to the accused and reportedly for part of such loan amount a writing came to be effected on 1.3.2005. Admittedly, there is no specific name of the present respondent No.1 appearing in the said writing having the title as `receipt and it is for the amount of Rs.6 lacs which was to be repaid to the applicant within six months. According to the applicant-complainant, he had given loan in different instalments to the accused, however, did not obtain any other receipt except the writing dated 1.3.2005. According to him, one of such instalments was given in presence of his wife. Wife of the complainant has not been examined. It appears that the Trial Magistrate has considered the scope of the provisions of Section 138 as to from whose account cheque was issued and whether the accused was liable to pay the amount of the cheque and whether it was established by the complainant that it was the cheque issued by the accused in repayment of any alleged loan 3 amount. 4. Considering the above factual position and considering the reasoning given by the learned Trial Magistrate, in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere in the impugned judgment of acquittal and as such present leave petition is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J)