(1) Cri. Application No. 1629 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 1629 of 2011 Manoj s/o. Vishwanath Sonvane, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Dayaram Road, Opp. Patange Building, Vishwanath Niwas, .. Applicant Latur, Taluka & District : Latur. (Original complainant) versus 1. Shrimant s/o. Kerba Kawale, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Somwar Peth, Basweshwar Galli, Latur, Taluka & District : Latur. .. Respondents (No.1 - Original 2. The State of Maharashtra. accused) ....................... Mr. S.G. Dargad, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. S.V. Chandole, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.2. (2) Cri. Application No. 1629 of 2011 ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original complainant) seeking leave to file appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, dated 17th February 2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2009, thereby acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused. 4. I have perused the record and proceedings and the impugned judgment dated 17th February 2011 of the first appellate court, as well as, the judgment dated 6-8-2009, rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, with the (3) Cri. Application No. 1629 of 2011 assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Apparently, it appears that the learned trial court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by way of judgment and order dated 6-8-2009, rendered in S.T.C.C. No. 495/2006. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order of conviction and sentence, accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 71/2009 before the learned Sessions Court, which came to be allowed by the learned Sessions Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 17th February 2011, and thereby the judgment and order of conviction was set aside and the accused was acquitted. Thus, it appears that there are two contrary findings of the trial court, as well as, first appellate court. Hence, the matter requires re- consideration. 6. Hence, present Criminal Application is allowed, and leave to file appeal is granted. Present Criminal Application be treated as Appeal. Office to register and number it as Criminal Appeal. 7. Admit. 8. Learned Counsel Mr. S.V. Chandole, holding for (4) Cri. Application No. 1629 of 2011 learned Counsel, Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, waives service of notice for respondent no.1, after admission. Learned APP, Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, waives service of notice for respondent no.2 / State, after admission. 9. Respondent no.1 to furnish same bail, but to execute fresh bond before the learned trial court, within a period of four weeks from today. 10. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/1629ka