crapln1757.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1757 OF 2010. Jyoti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Kopargaon, Branch Kolhar (Bk.), Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar, through Ratan Rambhau Chaudhary aged 44 years, occu. Service, r/o Rahata, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. APPLICANT. VERSUS Mujawar Mubarak Ganibhai, aged 40 years, Occu. business, r/o Fatyabad, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENT. ... Shri R.A. Tambe, Advocate for applicant. Shri M.D. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 14th February, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for respondent. 2. Since the facts have been stated crapln1757.10 2 elaborately stated in the impugned judgment, those need not be repeated. Suffice it to say that the trial Court framed the following issues for its determination: "1. Does complainant prove that, on 20.9.2008 the accused issued cheque drawn on Corporation Bank, Branch Kolhar of Rs. 94124/- for discharging legal debt or liability in favour of the complainant and when complainant presented it for encashment the same came to be dishonoured by the Banker of the accused and on statutory notice the accused failed to make its payment to the complainant? Finding: In negative. 2. What order? Finding: As per final order." The Court below held that since the point No.1 is not proved by the applicant, the respondent is entitled for acquittal. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that merely on the ground that the communication from the Bank is not signed by any officer or any employee of the Bank crapln1757.10 3 showing that there was insufficient fund, the entire complaint of the applicant cannot be discarded. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, details of the cheque have been mentioned in the document at Exh.23 and, therefore, the trial Court should have accepted the said document. He further submitted that if case of the complainant is accepted, there was no reason for the trial Court to acquit / discharge the accused merely on the ground that the document showing insufficient fund was not signed by Bank official. The learned Counsel for applicant further submitted that Exh.23 has been admitted in evidence and, therefore, there was no question of disbelieving the same by the trial Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant, in the alternative, prays that if this Court is not convinced, the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for giving the complainant crapln1757.10 4 an opportunity to lead evidence on the said point. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is given benefit of doubt since Exh.23 was neither signed by any employee of the Bank nor it bears seal of the Bank. No any employee of the said Bank was examined by the applicant. He, therefore, submitted that possible view has been taken by the trial Court and no interference is warranted by this Court. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the document - Exh.23 placed on record, it clearly appears that the said communication showing that there are no sufficient funds in the account of the respondent herein was not signed by any authorized signatory of the said Bank and no employee of the said Bank was examined in support of the contention of the complainant crapln1757.10 5 that cheque was returned due to insufficient funds. The trial Court is correct in interpreting Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in holding that the complainant has failed to prove that the return of cheque was due to insufficient funds. 6. Therefore, in my opinion, the trial Court has taken a possible view and no interference is called for. Application is rejected. Record be sent to the trial Court. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*