IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.3162 of 2008 In Criminal Appeal No.618 of 2008 (Bapurao Marotrao Deshmukh v. Rajesh Prabhakarrao Bonkinpillewar and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri Firdos Mirza, Advocate for Applicant. Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for Non-Applicant No.2. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 8th December, 2008 This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing an appeal filed by the convict against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pusad on Criminal Complaint Case No.36 of 2003. The complaint had been filed for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on account of dishonour of cheque of Rs.2 lacs. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered, the learned Magistrate had convicted the non- applicant and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2 lacs, or in default to suffer further RI for four months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside this conviction as well as the sentence. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The non-applicant, though served, is not present. I have also gone through the copy of deposition of the applicant made available for my perusal by the learned counsel for the applicant. In the said copy, in course of cross- examination, the applicant had stated that he could not tell the date on which power of attorney was given to the accused. He admitted that the accused had given him two cheques of Rs. 2 lacs and Rs,1,85,000/-. In respect of cheque of Rs.1,85,000/-, Civil Suit had been filed. He could tell whether he had received a sum of Rs.2,15,000/-. He admitted that he had received some money from the accused, but could not tell if from 1-5-2002 to 20-11-2002, he had received Rs.4,45,000/- If the complainant himself could not tell whether he had received this amount or not, he has to blame himself. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse or improbable. Leave is refused. Appeal stands dismissed. Judge. Pdl.