1 Appln: 3355/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3355 OF 2009 Mr. Sanjeev Maruti Owle .... Applicant (Ori. complainant) Vs. Sau. Nanda Ashok Marne & .... Respondents The State of Maharashtra Mr. M.B. Kale, Advocate for applicant. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 22nd February, 2011 P.C. 1. This application is for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 7th May 2009, by which the trial Court acquitted respondent no. 1 of the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and dismissed the complaint. 2. It is the case of the applicant in his complaint that respondent no.1 had agreed to sell him the land owned by her at village Warje. In November 2006, the applicant had paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to respondent no.1 as earnest money/advance towards the purchase of the land. The payment of part of the consideration was witnessed by one Mr. Kashinath Ubhe. Respondent no.1 had agreed to execute the agreement of sale in respect of the land. It appears that thereafter some difficulties arose for respondent no.1 in completing the transaction of sale. Therefore, she returned the 2 Appln: 3355/2009 amount of part consideration received by her by issuing the cheque in question in the sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. This cheque when presented for eacashment, had dishonoured, leading to the present proceedings. 3. The trial court dismissed the complaint and acquitted respondent no.1 on the ground that respondent no.1 had in the cross-examination of the applicant brought sufficient material before the court to rebut the presumption under Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque in question was given by her towards legally enforceable debt. In the cross- examination, the applicant admitted that respondent no.1 had taken hand loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from him. He also admitted that the amount paid was not towards consideration of transaction of sale of the land by respondent no.1 to the applicant. In view of these categorical admissions on the part of the applicant, the trial court has rightly held that the presumption under Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the applicant was rebutted. Thereafter the applicant has not brought any material before the court to show that the cheque in question was issued towards any illegally enforceable debt. The view taken by the trial court being a plausible view, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The application for leave is dismissed. ( Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)