1 cri.appln 1034-2010 group IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1034 OF 2010 with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1035 OF 2010 with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1036 OF 2010 Mr.Suresh G. Kumar ...Applicant VS. Smt.Nafisa Tarawala & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Niranjan Mundargi i/b. Mr.H.H. Hagi for the Applicant. Mr.K.S. Patil with Mr.Shailesh Chavan i/b. Mr.V.S. Kapse for the Respondent. Smt.A.A. Mane, APP for the State. CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : APRIL 6, 2011 P.C :- 1 Heard. Perused applications. Leave to appeals against the orders and judgments dated 30th December, 2009 acquitting the respondent nos.1 and 2 (Original accused nos.2 and 3) in C.C. No. 2183/SS/2008, 2185/SS/2008 and 3630/SS/2007 of the 2 cri.appln 1034-2010 group offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, passed by the 10th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Andheri, Mumbai, is sought in the present applications. The complaint/s Exhibit-A was/were against one Noor Hussain Tarawalla, husband of respondent no.2 and partner of respondent no.1 firm along with the said respondents by the appellant who described himself as person having valid Power of Attorney of Shri Suresh G. Kumar. The complaint/s reveal/s that the accused nos.1 and 2 were the partners of accused no.3 and were looking after day to day business of accused no.3 and as such they had issued cheque/s in question for Rs.25, 50 and 25 lakhs and the said cheques were dishonoured for want of funds in the account on which the said cheques were drawn. Pertinently, it is revealed that the cheques were signed by accused no.1 Noor Hussain Tarawalla. The complaint further reveals that the notices demanding the payments due under the said cheques were dispatched through Registered A.D. Post and UCP. 3 cri.appln 1034-2010 group There was no response to the said notices despite, the complaints reveal, the accused receiving them. The learned trial court upon appreciation of the evidence adduced before it concluded that - i)the complaint could not have been presented by the person posing himself as Power of Attorney of Suresh G. Kumar, the payee under the cheques in question, ii)There was no legitimate liability arising out of the property deal entered with the accused, iii)notice of demand was not dispatched to the accused no.2  respondent no.1 herein. 2 The learned trial court justified its conclusions with reference to the evidence placed before it vide para nos.5 to 23 of the impugned Judgments. For thrashing out the legal contentions, the learned trial Court considered the judgments cited by the rival parties, more particularly listed herein :- 4 cri.appln 1034-2010 group i)Ray Joseph Creado V/s. Sk. Tamisuddin and others 2008 Cri.L.J. 1509, ii)Agarwal Trading Company v/s. Babu Lal 2009 ALL MR(Cri) 307 (Rajasthan High Court), iii)Durgadevi Bhattad v/s. Shalikram Korde 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1340 (Bombay High Court), iv)Mrs.Heena Rupani v/s.Sarita Nandlal Choudhari 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 3419 (Bombay High Court), v)M/s.Shankar Finance and Investments v/s. State of A.P. 2009 (4) ALL MR 480 (Supreme Court), vi)Yogendra Sachdev v/s. State of Maharashtra 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 639, vii)K.N. Beena v/s. Muniyappan 2001 Cri.L.J. 4745, viii)Sanjay Mishra v/s. Ms.Kanishka Kapoor 2009 Cri.L.J. 3777 (Bombay High Court), ix)Vasudeo Ramchandra Ahuja v/s. Vilas Shripati Kamble 2006 All MR (Cri) 3203 (Bombay High Court), x)Krishna Janardhan Bhat v/s. Dattatraya Hegde AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1325, xi) Katta Sujata v/s. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 598 (Supreme Court). xii)Mrigendra Jalan v/s. State of Maharashtra 2009 Cri.L.J. 104 (Bombay High Court), xiii)Raj Kumar Mangla v/s. Indo Lowenbrau 5 cri.appln 1034-2010 group Breweries Ltd. 2000 DoCh. 662 (Punjab and Haryana High Court), xiv) Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v/s. State of Gujarat 2004 Cri.L.J. 4249 (Supreme Court), xv)Smt.Shakti Bhakoo v/s. M/s.Raj Lakshmi Mills 2002 Cri.L.J. 1994 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) and xvi)Smt.Manibai v/s. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 Supreme Court 434. and held that the accused no.2 Nafisa Tarawalla could not have been prosecuted unless the proof that she was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm and that the offence was committed either with her knowledge or with her connivance was adduced in evidence. 3 The learned Advocate Mr.Kapse for the contesting respondent further pointed out from the evidence that the respondent no.1 i.e. the original accused no.2 Nafisa Tarawalla was not shown to be responsible for day to day business of the firm or that she had knowledge of the acts done by her deceased husband Noor Husain Tarawalla. It is 6 cri.appln 1034-2010 group further pointed out from the evidence that the certificate of posting relied upon as proof of the dispatch of the notice of demand to respondent nos.1 and 2 failed to show that three separate articles/communications were dispatched to the addressees  (1) Mr.Noor Hussain Tarawalla, 2) Mrs.Nafisa Tarawalla and (3) M/s.Metro Development Corporation separately. He, therefore, submitted that it was perilous to presume and conclude therefrom that the notice of demand was received by respondent no.1 Noor Hussain Tarawalla and respondent no.2 Nafisa Tarawalla. Evidently, the complaint was not in the name of Suresh G. Kumar, the payee or the holder of the cheque in due course, in question, but it was initiated by one Jeetendra Peter Ferreira who styled himself as a person having valid Power of Attorney of Suresh G. Kumar . In light of the ratio in M/s.Shankar Finance and Investments (supra) decided by the Hon ble Apex Court, the view taken by the learned trial court cannot be faulted. In the result, the appeals for 7 cri.appln 1034-2010 group which the leave is sought are bound to fail. 4 Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. Applications are disposed of, accordingly. (U.D. SALVI, J.)