[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2855 OF 2007 Sou.Meena Bhujangrao Dhakane ..Applicant Vs. Smt.Sanjivani Namdeo Shinde (Borade) ..Respondent ... Mr.P.B.Shah Advocate for Applicant Mr.Rajesh More APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-original complainant has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.5.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Pune in RCC No.21 of 2000. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the evidence which has been produced by him as well as the judgment and order. [-2-] 3. The learned Magistrate has held that the Complainant failed to prove legal liability of accused in terms of cheque amount. Accused has brought the circumstance on record from the mouth of complainant and the husband of complainant which clearly shows that there was financial support from accused to husband of complainant and not from the complainant to accused. Accused has brought on record from the mouth of complainant that husband of complainant is a driver in education department of Maharashtra Government and accused is a clerk. Complainant has admitted that her husband borrowed loan from various banks during the period 1995 to 2000. But complainant is not aware whether accused is a Guarantor to the loan of husband and whether accused has paid the amount of instalment against the loan of her husband. But one thing is clear that the alleged loan transaction is prior to November, 1999 and during that period, the husband of complainant was indebted. Complainant has mentioned in her complaint that she has borrowed the said amount from other persons to pay the accused. But she has not examined the witnesses from whom she has borrowed the amount. [-3-] 4. Moreover, the husband of complainant has admitted that he borrowed Rs.50,000/- from Suvarna Sahakari Bank on 20.5.1999. The witness has again admitted that he borrowed Rs.50,000/- from Pune People’s Co-Op. Bank in the year 1993 and accused was Guarantor to the said loan. The witness has admitted that on 7.7.1993 accused deposited Rs.6,700/- in the said account, Rs.3,000/- on 13.12.1996 and Rs.36,000/- on 20.12.1996. The witness has admitted that accused was financially helping him from 1993 to 1996. The witness is a husband of complainant. When husband of complainant is running family as a bread earner and he was borrowing loan from bank, then, in such circumstances, it is not probable that complainant will lend hand loan to accused. Thus, it does not seem possible that money would have been advanced to the accused by the complainant. 6. Moreover, it has come on record that compromise was entered into by the parties which is at Exhibit-67. The complainant was shown xerox copy of compromise deed which she admitted and identified. Admittedly, in para 2 of compromise deed, there was reference of present complaint [-4-] along with other two complaints. As per the term nos.3 and 4 of the Compromise Deed, complainant assured that she will not continue the proceeding in terms of compromise and there is no liability against cheque amount and she has no complaint against accused. Admittedly complainant has withdrawn two cases. Complainant stated in her cross examination that accused has not made payment and therefore, she has not withdrawn the present complaint. It is pertinent to note that there is no reference of any hand loan or payment of any amount by accused to complainant. It appears from the compromise deed that the compromise deed was not a conditional one and it was only to withdraw the complaints. Despite that complainant continued with the present proceeding. In entire compromise deed, there is no whisper of making payment of accused to complainant against withdrawal of cases. Besides that the withdrawal and compromise was without any condition. 7. Moreover, it is seen that even witness no.2 of complainant has stated that accused made complaint of loss of cheque on 25.7.1996. So question does not arise of issuance of cheque on 4.11.1996. [-5-] 8. Looking to the evidence on record, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 9. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. 10. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. [-6-] 11. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]