1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5681 of 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2010 Mr.M.G.Kangani .. Applicant Versus Mohammad Aslam Noor Mohd., Shaikh & Another ...Respondents Mr. S.M.Suryawanshi for Applicant . Mr. M.S.Kadu for Respondent No.1 Nr.V.B.Kondedeshmukh for the State CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 7th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent no.1 faced trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai in C.c.No.2154/SS/2007. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, acquitted the respondent no.1 by judgment and order dated 20th September, 2010. The applicant has filed appeal 2 against this order dated 20th September, 2010. As per the provisions of law application for leave is filed. 2. I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Suryawanshi in support of the leave application and Mr. Kadu opposing the same on behalf of the respondent no.1. The complainant wanted to secure admission for his son in medical college and for that purpose respondent was engaged. Respondent no.1 promised complainant that if the complainant pays Rs.20,00,000/- the admission can be arranged. According to the complainant the job of securing admission did not go through and that is how the respondent issued two cheques, each of Rs.10,00,000/-. The said cheques got dishonoured. For the recovery of the said amount of Rs.20 lakhs, complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, was filed. 3. The learned Metropolitn Magistrate has referred to the main transaction and has observed that the transaction in its inception was illegal and it did not have the sanction of law and that is how he has come to the conclusion that the debt is not legally enforceable debt or the liability. 3 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Suryawanshi submitted that the respondent having accepted Rs.20 lakhs and having issued a cheque in favour of the complainant he was obliged to fulfill his commitment. According to him, non fulfillment of the commitment resulted into offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took the wrong view of the entire matter. He prays fro grant of the application. 5. Having gone through the text of the order dated 20th September, 2010, it is abundantly clear that the transaction entered into between the complainant and the respondent, as it is, did not have sanction of law. It was patently illegal transaction. Hence it could not have become the subject matter of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In my view, the reasons given by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, to dismiss the complaint are proper. No interference is required. Application is dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)