1 APPLN.5329.2010.odt mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5329 OF 2010 Jagdish Pundlik Parkar ...Applicant/Orig. Complt. Vs. Sadanand Daji Mirashi Patel & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Atul G. Damle for the Applicants Mr. Harshad Bhadbade and Mr. Waghmare for Respondent No.1 Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P for the State CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 6th MAY, 2011 P.C. : 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the acquittal of Respondent No.1 by the learned Sessions Court in a case of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- is stated to have been taken on 11th January 1999 for which a cheque came to be issued on 27th March 1999, which came to be dishonoured on 16th July 1999. Prior to this transaction, the Complainant had advanced another loan to the Respondent No.1 for which also a cheque came to be given, which was dishonoured. A criminal complaint was filed. Thereafter this transaction is stated to have been taken place. 2. The defence of the accused is that both these cheques were taken by force and misused. There was an earlier transaction for a friendly loan of Rs.30,000/- which was repaid. Since the Complainant required more 2 APPLN.5329.2010.odt amount to be repaid these two cheques are taken. 3. The learned Sessions Judge has considered that after the first transaction, which resulted in dishonour of cheque for which a criminal complaint was filed, the Complainant could not have advanced another loan under which the disputed cheque is issued. 4. The Complainant must show the legally enforceable debt. That would be seen, upon seeing a loan advanced. When it is not probable that the loan itself could have been advanced, the legally enforceable debt is not seen. Hence the reasoning of the Sessions Judge is correct. 5. Leave to appeal refused. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)