..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3882 OF 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 Narayan Maruti Lendway. ..Applicant. Versus Sou.Draupadbai Jaglal Pasi and Anr. ..Respondents. ... Mr.S.D.Patil, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 17th June, 2008. DATED : 17th June, 2008. DATED : 17th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-orig.complainant. 2. The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thane in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted respondent No.-orig. accused of the offence under Section of 138 of N.I.Act. ..(2).. 3. The case of the complainant is that on 30th November, 1999 he advanced loan of Rs.1 lakh to the accused. Cheque in question was issued in respect of the said liability. The cheque was dishonoured. Hence complaint came to be filed. The learned Magistrate convicted the respondent-orig.accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Being aggrieved thereby the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2005. As stated earlier, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-orig.accused. Hence the present application. 4. The specific case of the complainant is that he had advanced loan of Rs.1 lakh to the accused on 30th November, 1999 and cheque in question was issued in respect of the said loan. However, in his cross-examination the complainant has deposed as under :- "I cannot say the date when accused demanded hand loan and when I paid to her. I given that amount for business ..(3).. purpose to accused. I had given that amount only for business purpose not for any other purpose. I paid Rs.1.5 lacks to accused. I paid the amount by installments. On some occasions I paid Rs.15,000/-, on some occasions Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- within period of two years I paid Rs.1.5 lacs to accused. It is true that I did not pay Rs. 1 Lac on one date to the accused. On 30.11.1999 I did not pay Rs.1 Lac to accused." 5. The specific case of the complainant is that he had advanced Rs.1 lakh in one lumpsum to the accused on 30th November, 1999. However, if the admissions quoted above are seen, it is seen that the complainant has changed his version and now his case is that on 30th November, 1999 he had no occasion to advance Rs.1 lakh to the appellant. According to him, he advanced various small sum in the amount of Rs.10000/-, Rs.15000/-, Rs.20000/- etc. and in such fashion he advanced a total loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs. It is not the case of the ..(4).. complainant that the cheque in question was issued in respect of loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs. But his specific case is that cheque in question was issued in respect of loan of Rs.1 lakh which was given by the complainant to the accused on 30th November, 1999. If at all there was transaction of Rs.1.5 lakhs, it appears that it was a different transaction and it was not the very same transaction relating to 30th November, 1999. The learned Sessions Judge has taken all the above facts into consideration and thereafter has reached the conclusion that the cheque amount was not in respect of legal liability arising of any loan of Rs.1 lakh taken by the accused from the complainant. 6. Looking to the above evidence on record,I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. ..(5).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)