APPLN.4082-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 4082 OF 2010 M/s. Pallonji Leasing Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant Vs. Mrs. Sunita Milind Gaikwadi & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. S. D. Patil i/b Ujwal Angadsurve, for the Applicant. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : OCTOBER 5, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for condonation of delay, caused in filing the application for leave to appeal. The respondent No.1/original accused was acquitted by the J.M.F.C. Solapur for having committed the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant is a finance and leasing company and is engaged in the business of hire-purchase and financing for purchase of the vehicles. It is case of the complainant that respondent No.1 had approached the applicant company for financing for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle. Accordingly, the complainant had given finance to respondent No.1 and he purchased the vehicle and APPLN.4082-10 - 2 - entered into an agreement of hypothecation-cum loan agreement. It is submitted that the cheque given towards the liability of the accused for the repayment of the loan, was dishonoured, after the cheque was deposited by the complainant in the bank. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the complainant had not established that the said amount was due and payable by the accused and therefore, dismissed the complaint. 2. I have perused the impugned order. The complainant did not produce on record the loan agreement or any other agreement to show that this amount was payable on account of the loan given by it to the accused. The RTO records produced also indicate that the vehicle was transferred in favour of the accused and there was no entry in the RC book regarding hypothecation of the vehicle to the complainant. This being the position, in my view, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused had cheated RTO authority and also the applicant and a complaint is registered under S. 420 of the I. P. Code. The applicant is at liberty to pursue the said complaint which will be decided in accordance with the law. Thus, the criminal application is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]