1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 663 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 (Ajay Inderlal Lalwani .v. Sheela Sanjay Sharma and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri O.S. Harwani, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.G. Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri M.J. Khan, APP for respondent No.2/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 13TH OCTOBER, 2010. Heard. Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks leave to file appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order thereby acquitting respondent No.1 i.e. original accused in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2257 of 2008. He submits that the learned trial Court has neither appreciated the facts on record nor the evidence and arrived at an erroneous conclusion. The complaint filed by the complainant was under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, I have perused the judgment impugned in the present matter. The learned trial Court while dealing with the point that whether the complainant proves that disputed cheque was issued against the alleged liability and whether there was alleged transaction between the parties, found that the complainant has admitted that no bill was issued in the name of the accused. It was also observed by the learned trial Court that the complainant has failed to prove that, as alleged by the complainant, the material was purchased from the accused. On consideration of the evidence, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove that the disputed cheque was issued against the alleged liability 2 and the accused was bound to pay the amount. Learned trial Court further found that the accused was successful in rebutting the presumption with the help of the documentary evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the applicant was unable to show that the view taken by the learned trial Court was either contrary to the evidence on record or perverse. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned trial Court is probable one and no case is made out to show any indulgence by this Court. In the result, the leave is refused. Application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal fails. JUDGE *rrg.