1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.342 OF 2010 Ketan Ramanlal Shah ..Applicant V/s Prakash Kisanrao More and another. ..Respondents ..... Mr.G.V. Wani, advocate for Applicant. Mrs.B.R.Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent no.2. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J DATE : 5th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.G.V. Wani, learned counsel for applicant(original complainant) as well as Mrs.B.R. Khekale, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.2. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant, seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.11.2009, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakri, Dist.Dhule in R.C.C. No.486/2004, acquitting the respondent no.1 (original accused) for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable 2 Instrument Act, 1881. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.11.2009 with the assistance of learned counsel for applicant and learned A.P.P. for respondent no.2. 4. Respondent no.1 herein(original accused) faced trial in R.C.C. No.486/2004 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. It is alleged that the applicant Bank advanced loan of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent no.1 in the year 2002 and interest thereon has already been accrued to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and against the said dues, respondent no.1 herein tendered the cheque of Rs.22,000/- as part payment thereof. 5. However, the learned trial Judge observed in the impugned judgment that the complainant's witness admitted in his cross-examination that it is nowhere mentioned in the notice as well as present complaint that he was authorised to file suit and to lead oral evidence by way of any resolution passed by the 3 applicant bank. The learned trial Judge also observed in the said judgment that the said witness also admitted that he can not state as to on which date the respondent no.1 (original accused) applied to the loan and for which business he obtained the loan from the bank. He further categorically admitted that the applicant bank has not produced any document to show that loan of Rs.50,000/- was advanced to the respondent on 15.11.2002, as well as he further admitted that he did not confirm as to which business the respondent was advanced loan, as well as applicant bank has not produced the promissory note, agreement and deed of guarantee as well as the statement of account in the Court to substantiate the claim of the applicant bank. He further stated that he can not give the names of the guarantors while advancing the said loan. In the light of the said observations, the learned trial Judge concluded that there was no legally enforcible debt and existed liability against respondent. 6. Considering the aforesaid observations as well as conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge, 4 apparently, the view adopted by the trial Judge, after scrutinising and appreciating the evidence on record, is a possible view to be taken and no perversity is found therein, and therefore, no interference is warranted therein in the appellate jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same stands dismissed and leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal stands refused. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri342.10