1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No.3833 of 2006 (Kailash Baliram Jadhav v. Vasant Ramchandra Borkar) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri Parihar, Advocate, holding for Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate, for Applicant. Shri N.P. Kalwaghe, Advocate for Non-Applicant. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 25th November, 2008 This is an application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Buldana. The original complainant claimed that the non- applicant had issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to him on 12-4-2005, which bounced because the non-applicant had stopped the payment. He then issued a statutory notice demanding money under the cheque, but did not receive the same and, therefore, filed the complaint. The defence of non-applicant at the trial was that a blank signed cheque was given to one Vaibhav Deshmukh from whom the non-applicant had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,000/- through the mediation of one Sanjay Mundlik. He had also given a blank signed stamp paper to the said Vaibhav Deshmukh. However, Vaibhav Deshmukh did not return the blank signed cheque and blank signed stamp paper though the 2 entire amount has been repaid. Therefore, the non-applicant instructed the bank to stop the payment of the cheque. The non-applicant claims that he has nothing to do with the applicant. It seems that the applicant put the date and the amount in the cheque, presented it for encashment and upon dishonour, issue notice. The non-applicant claimed to have lodged a report to the Superintendent of Police on 26-4-2005. At the trial, the applicant examined himself in support of his case, while the non-applicant examined himself, one Sanjay Mundlik and Ganesh Tembhikar. Upon consideration of evidence of these witnesses, the learned Magistrate found that it was not proved that the cheque was given in discharge of a debt or legally enforceable liability and, therefore, acquitted the non-applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the non-applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the cross-examination of the applicant, it had been suggested on behalf of the non-applicant that at the time of alleged transaction he had obtained signature of the non-applicant on blank stamp paper, which suggestion he denied. It may be seen that while making suggestion, the counsel had taken sufficient precaution to add the word “alleged”. Therefore, there was no admission on the part of the non-applicant that there was transaction with the complainant. 3 The learned counsel for the applicant also sought to rely on the statement by the non-applicant in the cross-examination. The non-applicant had stated that it was true that the transaction about which he had stated in the affidavit had no concern with the transaction with the complainant. This was also true because it is the defence of the non-applicant that his transaction was with one Vaibhav Deshmukh and in the affidavit, that transaction was referred to. It is, therefore, not clear as to how the judgment of the learned Magistrate acquitting the non-applicant is incorrect. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is probable and, therefore, does not call for any interference. Leave to file is refused. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE pdl