..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3840 OF 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 Pradip Bhuta. ..Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. ... Mr.G.K.Karkera, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 23rd June, 2008. DATED : 23rd June, 2008. DATED : 23rd June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai in C.C. No.718/SS/2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent No.2-orig.accused No.1 of the offence under Section of 138 of N.I.Act. 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed Rs.90,000/- from him and in discharge of the said liability the cheque in the sum of Rs.90,000/- was given by the accused to the complainant. As the said cheque bounced, after ..(2).. following due procedure, complaint came to be filed. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-Orig.complainant Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned Counsel for the applicant-orig.complainant. 4. After going through the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate has observed that the complainant was doing money lending business without licence and hence no legally enforceable liability arose and therefore no offence was made out under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is on these grounds and other grounds that the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent-Orig.accused. 5. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen that the complainant had given the money to the present accused on interest. The complainant has admitted that he has given money on interest to various persons. Admittedly the complainant does not have a money lending licence. From the evidence on record, it is seen that the complainant is doing ..(3).. money lending business without licence. In such case, it cannot be said that any legally enforceable liability arose. Thus, in my opinion the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 6. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then mere circumstance that the lower Court could have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. 7. As observed above, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. ..(4).. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)