1 appln 4299-09 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4299 OF 2009 Gautam Kantilal Sakhala .. Applicant Versus Rajshree @ Rajubai Namdeo Moohite and another .. Respondents Mr. Narayan R. Bubna the Applicant Mr. S. A. Shaikh, APP for the State CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 7 th January, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Bubna for the Applicant. 2. This is an application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 18 th July,2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malegaon in Summary Criminal Case No. 814 of 2006. 3. The Applicant is the original complainant, who filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, popularly known as “cheque bouncing case”. It involves one cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- dated 5.2.2007, when presented by the complainant in the bank for realistion was bounced for want of sufficient fund. It is 2 appln 4299-09 alleged that the said cheque was accepted by the complainant who sold his property to the accused by a regular sale deed and the amount figured in the impugned cheque is the balance of the consideration. 4. It is not disputed that there was a sale transaction between the parties as per the sale deed referred in the complaint. The accused took defence that there was no amount due and payable to the complainant as mentioned in the cheque i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- but only Rs.20,500/- is due to the complainant because she had already paid Rs.1 lac as per the earnest note, a month before the execution of the sale deed. It seems that there is discrepancy about the amount of actual transaction. 5. I have perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court. The trial Court has discussed all the evidence in this case and heard both the parties at length. 6. Although the complainant has filed the correspondence of the bounced cheque, and the correspondence relating to statutory or legal requirement to file the complaint, but on merits the accused has discharged her burden. Considering the merits of the case of the accused, she only admitted the liability of Rs.20,500/- as 3 appln 4299-09 balance due and not Rs.1,25,000/-. Her case has been accepted. As such she cannot be held guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 7. The learned trial Court heard the accused and the complainant and their counsel and recorded findings, duly supported with sound reasons. Full opportunity was given to the complainant to establish his case. The complainant could not satisfy that the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was due and recoverable from the accused. In that view of the matter, there is no case made out by the applicant-complainant. There is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. No interference is required. No case is made out. Leave is refused. 8. The Application is rejected. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )