IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1824 OF 2006 M/s.Rashmi Tyres .. Applicant Versus Sahil Himmat Sarjekhan & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for the applicant. Mr.Vikas M. Mali for respondent no.1. Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 10th February 2009. : 10th February 2009. : 10th February 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. The applicant is the complainant in a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The acquittal of the 1st respondent is on various grounds. One of the grounds is that the applicant has not establish that the cheque in dispute was issued by the 1st respondent towards a legally enforceable liability. 2. In the complaint filed by the applicant he has come out with a case that his business is of selling tyres of vehicles and in particular tyres of trucks. The specific case made out for the applicant/complaint is that the 1st respondent accused purchased tyres worth Rs.22,000/- from the shop of the appellant on 09th February 2004 on credit. Reference has been made to the (2) further sale transactions between the applicant and the 1st respondent. The case of the applicant is that the 1st respondent was liable to pay sum of Rs.48,400/- being the price of the tyres purchased by the 1st respondent from the applicant. 3. In the notice dated 03rd November 2004 on the basis of which complaint was filed, the applicant came out with the case that it was the father of the 1st respondent who had purchased the tyres. In fact specific averment in the notice is that an account of the father of the 1st respondent is maintained by the applicant and as per the said account, a sum of Rs.48,400/- was payable by the father of the 1st respondent. The specific case made out in the notice is that the cheque on the basis of which the complaint was filed was issued by the 1st respondent on behalf of the father in his capacity as the guarantor. The documents produced by the applicants such as the extract of the account as well as cash/credit memorandum show that the tyres were purchased by the father of the 1st respondent and not by the 1st respondent. In the cross examination the prosecution witness admitted that on the bills produced in support of the complaint, the name of the 1st respondent was not appearing. 4. Thus, a totally inconsistent case was made out (3) by the applicant in the complaint. In the circumstances, a finding has been recorded by the learned trial Judge that the applicant has not established that the cheque was issued by the 1st respondent towards a legally enfoceable liability. The case made out by the applicant establishes that the liability was of the father of the 1st respondent and not of the 1st respondent. 5. The view taken by the learned trial Judge is certainly a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record. Even if submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant are accepted, at the most what can be said that there are two view possible, one in favour of the accused and other in favour of the complainant. In view of the settled position of law, no interference can be made in an appeal against acquittal. No case is made out for grant of leave. 6. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are for limited purposes of considering the prayer for grant of special leave to prefer an appeal. None of the observations shall be construed as any finding or adjudication made by this Court as regards rights and liabilities of the parties. (4) (A.S.Oka,J)