MP 1 APPLN3927_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3927 OF 2010 Shri Umakant Govind Parab ... Applicant Versus Shri Rajendrakumar Bajaj and another ... Respondents Ms Shakuntala Wadekar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Y. S. Shinde, APP for the Respondent No.2 State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER 2011 P. C. : The original complainant has filed this application seeking leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Criminal Case No. 1549/SS/2007. 2. According to the complainant, for repayment of the loan, the accused respondent had issued a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was dishonoured, and in spite of notice, the respondent had failed to remain present. It was the defence of the accused that he had taken a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- and he had repaid the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- by pay order and Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash towards interest thereon. According to him, the complainant had obtained signatures on six cheques, two of Rs. 1,50,000/- each and four of Rs. 1,00,000/- each as security and in spite of repayment of the loan, he has misused one of the cheques. In the cross-examination, the complainant also admitted to have received amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as stated above. However, he tried to contend that he had advanced amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- and taken the cheques. 3. The learned Trial Court found that there was no evidence about advance of Rs. 7,00,000/- by the complainant. Initially, the complainant also admitted that he had not shown the loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- in his income tax returns, but thereafter, he produced a certified copy of the income tax returns for the assessment year 2006-2007. The learned Trial Court did not believe it because no witness was MP 2 APPLN3927_10 examined to prove that certified copy and establish that the said amount was actually shown in the income tax returns. The learned Trial Court also found that the service of the statutory notice on the accused was also not proved. 4. Taking into consideration the grounds given by the learned Trial Court for acquittal, it is impossible to say that the view taken by the Trial Court is not reasonably possible. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason to interfere in the order of acquittal. 5. In the result, leave to prefer appeal is refused and the application stands rejected. (J. H. BHATIA, J)