1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 302 of 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2010 Mr.Dhanaji Krishnaji Pawar .. Applicant (Org. Complainant) Versus Mr.Rohidas Krishnaji Parad & Another ...Respondents Mr. A.M.Bhalerao i/b.P.G.Badale for Applicant. Mr. H.J.Dedia, APP for State CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 6th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent has faced trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, before the learned 6th Joint Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Vashi, in SSC No.423 of 2006. The learned 6th Joint Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Vashi, (hereafter referred to as the learned Judge) acquitted respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Order dated 10th August, 2010. The applicant, being aggrieved by the said order has filed criminal appeal and has sought leave by this application. 2 2. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Bhalerao, appearing on behalf of the applicant. A reading of the entire record goes to show that the house owned by the wife of the applicant was agreed to be sold to the respondent and the entire transaction to which a reference is made in this complaint was between wife of the applicant and the respondent. A reading of the record goes to indicate that the applicant has not been able to show that respondent was indebted to the applicant and on account of that, the respondent had executed the impugned cheque in favour of the applicant. 3. If the applicant has not been able to make out the case that the respondent was indebted to the applicant and consequently to discharge the said liability, the respondent had issued a cheque, the dishonour of the cheque by itself may not hold, so far as the applicant is concerned. After having considered the entire matter, I am inclined to observe that there is no reason to interfere in the judgment by which the respondent is acquitted. Hence application is rejected. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) 3