1 A IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.510 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Misha M.Jashnani .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.511 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Bharti M.Jashnani .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.512 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Mahesh P.Jashnani .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Ganesh Gole for the Applicant. Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P.for the State. Mr.K.T.Kukreja with Mr.R.R.Lambay i/b.Mr.D.H.Shah for Respondent No.2. 2 CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : JUNE 18TH,2009. P.C. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. It is vehemently argued by the learned Advocate Mr.Gole for the applicant in all the three matters that here it is a case in which the order of acquittal of Respondent No.2 accused is required to be tested in the appeal before this Court. All the three matters are regarding leave applications to file an appeal against the acquittal of Respondent No.2 original accused a Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (herein after referred as HUF) and relative of the complainant. 3. These are the matters regarding dishonour of respective cheques given from the account of HUF, but, admittedly signed by one Mr.Tulsi, a relative of the accused and also the complainant party. It appears that admittedly said Tulsi who is signatory to all the three dishonoured cheque had no authority to put signature for on behalf of HUF in whose name the account was maintained with the bank. Said Tulsi is not examined by the complainant during the 3 trial before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court. Also there are no documents brought showing the authority given to Tulsi by the accused to sign on his behalf. 4. As against the above, it is brought on record on behalf of the accused as to filing of complaints against said Tulsi and other relatives and also concerned bank officials for alleged fraud and honouring the cheques though signed by Mr.Tulsi without having any valid authority. 5. Considering the above circumstances and considering the material produced before the trial Magistrate, it is a peculiar case in which the evidence was not accepted by the trial Magistrate so as to hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in the opinion of this Court, it was so rightly done. Considering the scope of this Court envisaged by section 378 of Cr.P.C.to interfere with the acquittal of the accused persons, there is nothing to allow the present petition so as to again re-agitate the matters in the appeals. Consequently, all the three leave applications are dismissed and accordingly disposed of. 4 (A.R. JOSHI, J.)