1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2086 OF 2009 Ashok s/o Pundlik Sonar APPLICANT VERSUS Suman w/o Bhilla Lavate .. RESPONDENT Shri B.P. Thakare, Advocate for the applicant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 6 th July, 2009. PER COURT : 1 Applicant / complainant has presented this application seeking leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chalisgaon on 24-3-2009 in SCC no. 267/2006 in respect of commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 It is the case of the complainant that he had given an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- in favour of the accused towards hand loan. Accused had issued two cheques for amount of Rs.80,000/- each towards repayment of the hand loan. However, on presentation of the cheques, the same were returned back for the reason that the accused had not put sufficient balance in her account. On presentation of the complaint accused caused her appearance. It is the contention of the accused that two blank cheques were given towards security for certain transactions which were entered into 2 by her son in law with the complainant. 3 I have perused the judgment and order passed by the trial court. Complainant has admitted in his evidence that accused had given blank cheques. However, according to complainant, he has authority to put the date and fill up the particulars. According to the complainant, the cheques were issued in discharge of legally enforceable liability. However, there is absolutely no evidence except bare statement of the complainant that an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was handed over the complainant. Although the complainant has cited two witnesses in the complainant in whose presence, according to him, the amount was handed over, however, those witnesses have not been examined by the complainant. There is no writing in respect of the transaction between the parties and as such the same has not been placed on record. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, it cannot be inferred that the transaction entered into between the complainant and the accused is itself legally enforceable. Trial court has adopted a reasonable view of the matter and has directed acquittal of the accused. Merely because some other view is possible is not a ground for causing interference. Appeal is devoid of substance. Hence, application seeking leave to file appeal stands rejected. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/criappln2086.09.odt