1 cra.5074.09 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5074 OF 2009 Ms. Meena C. Somaiya ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Sachin B. Chandan h/for Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade for the applicant. Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : JANUARY 05, 2011 P.C. This is an application filed for leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order dated 1st October, 2009 passed by the trial court acquitting respondent no. 2 of the charges punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It was the complaint of the applicant that she had given friendly loan of Rs. 3 lac. to respondent no. 2 by paying the amount to one Sachin Shinde at the instance of respondent no.2. In 2 cra.5074.09 repayment of the said amount, respondent no. 2 issued cheque in the sum of Rs. 3 lacs., which cheque when presented for payment was dishonoured, leading to the complaint in this case. The trial court on appreciation of evidence found that the applicant had failed to establish that there was any legally enforceable debt due from the respondent no. 2 to her. It also took a note of the allegation of respondent no. 2 that the applicant carries on business of money lending without licence and therefore, the amount claimed in the cheque is not a legally enforceable debt. The applicant admitted in her cross examination that she does not hold any licence for money lending. She claimed to have personally filed 2/3 other proceedings for recovery of the loan given by her and 8 to 10 more proceedings as constituted attorney for other persons. Respondent no.2 however, produced particulars of five cases filed by the applicant in Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vikhroli and 17 cases in Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Mazgaon and Girgaon. The certified copies of the proceedings show that the applicant had lent large amounts of money to different persons. Therefore, the trial court concluded that considering the number of proceedings filed by the applicant in various courts for recovery of amounts lent by her to different persons, she is carrying on business of money lending 3 cra.5074.09 for which she does not hold any licence. The trial court also took a note of the admission given by her in the cross examination that she hardly knows the respondent. She stated that she had came to know respondent in connection with some work relating to life insurance. In that circumstances, the court found that it was unbelievable that the applicant would lend a large sum of Rs. 3 lacs as a friendly loan to respondent no. 2 who was almost a stranger. The view taken by the trial court, in my opinion is a possible view which is completely supported by the evidence on record. In the circumstances, application for leave to prefer appeal is rejected. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)