( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4282 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4281 OF 2008 Farida W/o Yusuf Virani Appellant Age:45 Yrs.Occu:Household, R/o Fazalpura, Aurangabad Through its GPA Yusuf Virani Age:48 Yrs., Occu:Business, R/o as above. V/s 1) M/s Ajay Enterprises & Co. A Registered Partnership Firm Through its partner Mr.Ajay Agrawal 2) Ajay Shrirang Agrawal Age:35 Yrs.Occu:Business, R/o Plot No.35, Bansilal Nagar, Aurangabad. Respondents -------------------------------------------------------- Miss A.S.Sarda Adv.holding for Adv.Mr.S.K.Barlota for applicant. Mr.D.S.Bharuaka Advocate for Respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------- ( 2 ) [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 24th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. The delay condonation application and application seeking leave to appeal are considered together. 2. Heard Learned Advocate Miss A.S.Sarda holding for Shri.A.S.Barlota Advocate. None appears for the respondents. 3. There is delay of 188 days in filing the appeal. It is stated that the applicant was suffering from "High Sugar " and was required to undergo operation. The application is not supported by any medical evidence. Nor the reason of such medical treatment is stated in the application. The contents of the application are vague. Consequently, it will have to be said that the reasons stated in the application cannot be termed as sufficient to condone the delay. 4. The applicant is original complainant. She filed criminal case bearing SCC No.1510/2006 for offence ( 3 ) U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act which ended in acquittal. She alleged that she had lent amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- about which the two cheques were issued by the respondent. Both the cheques were dishonoured The defence of the respondent was that he has obtained only Rs.1,00,000/- as loan on interest and had given two blank cheques to the Power of Attorney holder of the appellant. The appellant did not enter the witness box. Her general power of attorney holder, namely Yusuf Irani was examined. The Learned Magistrate noticed that the appellant failed to prove the money lending transaction. It was stated that she had earned said amount from bank pertaining to rent of the property. However the appellant did not produce any record to show that she earns rental of Rs.10,000/- per month. She did not produce Income Tax Return. It was alleged that the transaction of loan was written on stamp paper. However the relevant document was not produced before the Court. In view of material discrepancies appearing from the evidence of the prosecution, the acquittal of the respondent was ordered. There is no substantial reason to infer any ( 4 ) serious error committed by the Learned Magistrate. 5. For the above stated reasons, both the applications are dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE DSP/cri.apl.4282.08