..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2550 of 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 Mr.Kashinath Revansidh Warad. ..Applicant. Versus Mr.Prakash Ramesh Ingawale and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.S.S.Punde, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.B.S.Phad, Adv. for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for Respondent No.2-State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th May, 2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Pune in C.C.53593/2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent No.1-orig. accused of the offence under Section of 138 of N.I.Act. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant-Orig.complainant and the learned ..(2).. Advocate for the respondent No.1-orig.accused. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been annexed. 3. The case of the complainant is that he had given handloan to the respondent-accused from time to time and by way of repayment of the said handloan the accused issued cheque No.022679 dated 20.9.2005 in the sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant. As the said cheque was dishonoured, complaint came to be filed. 4. It is the specific case of the complainant that he had given handloan to the accused person. However, no details have been furnished by the complainant regarding on what day and how much amount he had given on such dates. The complainant is a Income Tax payee. However, he has not produced any documentary evidence by way of books of accounts or income tax returns to show that he had advanced loan of Rs.2,25,000/- to the ..(3).. accused. Therefore, it cannot be reliably said that the complainant has paid the amount to the accused from time to time and accused had issued the cheque at Exh.18 for the repayment of the said amount. Useful reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Vasudev Vasudev Vasudev Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vilas Shripati Kamble Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vilas Shripati Kamble Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vilas Shripati Kamble reported in 2006(2) Bombay C.R.(Cri.) 1 2006(2) Bombay C.R.(Cri.) 1 2006(2) Bombay C.R.(Cri.) 1, wherein it is observed as under : "The observation seen by the trial Court that amount allegedly paid by complainant during period has not been reflected in income Tax returns as well as in books of account. Reasons recorded by the court below on appreciation of evidence on record, impugned judgment cannot be said to be unreasonable and perverse." 5. Moreover, it is seen from Exh.24 & Exh.25 that the cheque was not given to the complainant, but, the cheque was infact given to Murlidhar Lekurwale by way of security for a loan of ..(4).. Rs.65,000/- which had to be repayed to Lekurwale by the accused. The accused had also kept his Rickshaw with Lekurwale by way of security and infact the said Rickshaw came to be sold to one Satish. The material on record show that the cheque was given to Mr.Murlidhar Lekurwale by way of security deposit in respect of loan of Rs.65,000/- taken from Mr.Murlidhar Lekurwale. There is no document to show that the said cheque was issued to the complainant for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/-. 6. Looking to the evidence on record, the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate that the cheque was not issued in respect of any legal liability, appears to be a reasonable and possible view. 7. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then mere circumstance that the lower Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am ..(5).. referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)