1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 OF 2006 1. M/s. Wibro Construction Co. through itsManaging Director Mr. K. Abdullah, R/o. Vishaya Manzil, Plot No.6, Behind Sai Service Station, Porvorim, Goa. .. Appellant Versus 1. Gangani Resorts Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Diamond Chambers, 18th June Road, Opp. Directorate of Education, Panaji-Goa. 2. Mr. Girdharlal M. Gangani, Director of Gangani Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Resident of Galaxy Building, Opp. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa. .. Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. R. S. Sardessai, Advocate for the respondents. Coram :- R. C. CHAVAN, J. Date : - 22 nd July, 2008. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : This appeal takes exception to acquittal of the respondent, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa in Criminal case No.641/P/2003/C/B. 2. For the sake of this appeal, following facts may be taken as not disputed. The appellant had purchased certain property from M/s. Shreeji Builders, of which the accused No.2 is the managing partner. Since there were obstacles in registration of the sale deed, the accused No.2, as a managing partner of Shreeji Builders, executed an undertaking on 5.1.2000, to pay damages of 5 % per month on a sum of Rs.50 Lacs. In pursuance of this undertaking, a cheque for Rs.35 Lacs was issued on 10.10.2003. This cheque was signed by the accused No.2, but was drawn on account of accused No.1,M/s.Gangani Resorts Pvt. Ltd. of which, the accused No.2 was also managing director. Upon dishonour of the cheque, notice was issued, which was duly received by the drawer of the cheque and since the drawer failed to pay the amount demanded, a complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate. 3. The defence of the accused in the said case the respondents herein was that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable liability. The learned Magistrate considered the evidence 3 tendered and acquitted the respondents holding that the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued to discharge a legal enforceable liability. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant is before this Court. 4. I have heard Advocate Valmiki Menezes for the appellant, who fairly took me through the complaint as well as evidence tendered before the trial Magistrate. Though in the complaint it had been alleged that a sum of Rs.35 Lacs was due to the complainant from the accused, in the evidence tendered on behalf of the complainant, in course of cross-examination, the complainant admitted that the accused No.1 did not owe any money to the complainant. If the accused No.1, which has its own distinct corporate identity, did not owe any money, issuance of cheque by managing director of the company would not indicate that the company had undertaken any liability. Therefore, on complainant's own admission, the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted. The fact that the respondent No.2 happens to be the managing director of the company as well as managing partner of a firm which owed this money, would not be relevant to fasten the liability of respondent No.1, Company. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned trial Magistrate took a view of the matter, which could be termed perverse to warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court. It is 4 settled principle of Criminal Law that in appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court may interfere only if it is shown that the view taken by the trial Court was perverse or untenable or had no nexus to the facts disclosed in evidence. 4. In this view of the matter the appeal is dismissed. R. C. CHAVAN, J. SMA