1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4375 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.862 OF 2007 Sardar Avtarsingh Indersingh Sodi Applicant Versus Shrinivas s/o Gopalkrishna Bhagwat & another Respondents Mr.P.N.Sonpethkar, advocate for the applicant. Mr.L.D.Vakil, advocate for Respondent No.1 Mrs.S.S.Autade,, A.P.P. For Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 03rd July, 2009. P.C.: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 This is an application seeking leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal dated 09.10.2007, recorded by 10 th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in S.C.C. No.6650/2004. 3 Applicant – complainant has presented a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in respect of dishonour of cheque for an amount of Rs.1,32,000/-. It is the contention of the complainant that the cheque tendered by accused-Respondent was towards balance of rent amount payable by him. It is contended that 2 Respondent was tenant of the premises belonging to the complainant. After he vacated the premises, he issued a cheque to the applicant towards arrears of rent. On deposit of the cheque, same was dishonoured for the reason that accused had not maintained sufficient funds in his account. After recording evidence of the parties, trial Court directed acquittal of the accused. 4 I have perused the judgment delivered by trial Court as well as heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for respective parties. Complainant deposed before the Court that accused was tenant inducted by his father. During his life time, his father used to receive the rent which was paid by the accused by issuing account payee cheques. After demise of father, his brother used to receive the rent. The complainant has specifically stated in his deposition before the Court that there is no evidence that the accused was his tenant or he was receiving the rent at any point of time. He has also categorically stated in his deposition that there is no written agreement in respect of creation of tenancy in favour of Respondent-accused. In this view of the matter, contention raised by the complainant that the cheque was issued towards legally enforceable dues i.e. arrears of rent amount cannot be said to have been established by him. It is the defence of accused that the cheque was issued towards some different transaction. It has also been brought on record that the fact, in respect of payment of rent amount received by him from the accused, has been disclosed by brother of the accused in the Returns presented to the Income Tax Department. There is sufficient evidence produced by the accused that the transaction between accused and complainant was not in respect of 3 tenancy of business or residential premises and that the disputed cheque was not issued towards payment of rent. 5 Considering the reasons recorded in the judgment, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has taken a reasonable view of the matter. Merely because some other view is also possible in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not a ground for causing interference in the order of acquittal. Appeal is devoid of substance. 6 Application seeking leave to file appeal, therefore, stands rejected. Consequently, appeal fails and stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/criappln437507