: 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 SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram Memoranda of Coram Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court’s orders appearances, Court’s orders appearances, Court’s orders or directions and or directions and or directions and Registrar’s orders Registrar’s orders Registrar’s orders ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for Applicant Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for Applicant Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for Applicant Coram : R.S.Mohite, J Coram : R.S.Mohite, J Coram : R.S.Mohite, J Date : 28.11.2007 Date : 28.11.2007 Date : 28.11.2007 PC PC PC 1. This appeal is against acquittal 1. This appeal is against acquittal 1. This appeal is against acquittal for an offence under section 138 of the for an offence under section 138 of the for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On perusal of the impugned judgment and perusal of the impugned judgment and perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I find that the same is based on order, I find that the same is based on order, I find that the same is based on plausible reasons. The cheque in plausible reasons. The cheque in plausible reasons. The cheque in question which was dishonoured was question which was dishonoured was question which was dishonoured was presented on 23rd December, 2003. It presented on 23rd December, 2003. It presented on 23rd December, 2003. It had been issued by the accused for had been issued by the accused for had been issued by the accused for purchase of certain premises. The purchase of certain premises. The purchase of certain premises. The agreement provided that the cheque was agreement provided that the cheque was agreement provided that the cheque was to be presented after certain to be presented after certain to be presented after certain compliance like occupancy certificate compliance like occupancy certificate compliance like occupancy certificate etc was obtained. The Courts have held etc was obtained. The Courts have held etc was obtained. The Courts have held that the record indicates that the that the record indicates that the that the record indicates that the cheque was presented prematurly. Name cheque was presented prematurly. Name cheque was presented prematurly. Name : 2 : of the accused was entered in the city of the accused was entered in the city of the accused was entered in the city survey record later on 31st May, 2006. survey record later on 31st May, 2006. survey record later on 31st May, 2006. The finding is that the complainant had The finding is that the complainant had The finding is that the complainant had presented the cheque without meeting presented the cheque without meeting presented the cheque without meeting with his part of the contract. The with his part of the contract. The with his part of the contract. The record indicates that earlier two record indicates that earlier two record indicates that earlier two cheques given by the accused have been cheques given by the accused have been cheques given by the accused have been encashed and in respect of the cheque encashed and in respect of the cheque encashed and in respect of the cheque in question stop payment was directed in question stop payment was directed in question stop payment was directed by the accused. It was the case of the by the accused. It was the case of the by the accused. It was the case of the accused that this was because the accused that this was because the accused that this was because the complainant had not complied with his complainant had not complied with his complainant had not complied with his terms of the agreement. It is not terms of the agreement. It is not terms of the agreement. It is not shown to me as to how the complainant shown to me as to how the complainant shown to me as to how the complainant had complied with the requisite had complied with the requisite had complied with the requisite condition of the agreement. Not a fit condition of the agreement. Not a fit condition of the agreement. Not a fit case for entertaining the appeal. case for entertaining the appeal. case for entertaining the appeal. Hence, leave refused. Appeal papers to Hence, leave refused. Appeal papers to Hence, leave refused. Appeal papers to be filed. be filed. be filed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) : 3 :