..(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 JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1150 OF 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 Shri Avinash Hari Kulkarni. ..Applicant. Versus Shri Vinayak Patwardhan and Anr. ..Respondents. ... Mr.P.J.Thorat, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.V.G.Peshve, Adv. for Respondent NO.1. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for Respondent No.2-State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 27th June, 2008. DATED : 27th June, 2008. DATED : 27th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 27th April, 2005 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune in Summary Criminal Case No.2294 of 1994. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent No.1-orig. accused of the offence under Section of 138 of N.I.Act. 2. The case of the complainant is that he ..(2).. decided to purchase one plot of land in village Bavdhan. After due negotiations with the accused, the complainant decided to purchase the plot in Bavdhan and accordingly the complainant paid the consideration to the accused. As the accused failed to execute the sale-deed and deliver the possession of the plot in favour of the complainant, the complainant sought return of the said amount. Hence the accused issued cheque in the sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant. As the cheque was dishonoured, complaint came to be filed. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-Orig.complainant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1-orig.accused. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned Counsel for the applicant-orig.complainant. 4. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No.1-orig.accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act holding that the cheque was not issued ..(3).. in respect of any legally enforceable liability. During cross-examination, the complainant admitted that accused did not own any land at Bavdhan. Complainant has decided to purchase land of Shri Balanath Bundhe. The consideration was fixed at Rs.41240/- and he has paid an amount of Rs.21000/- by cheque to said Balanath. He further admitted that the sale deed could not be executed as he has not paid the balance consideration to landlord. He has also admitted that he has not made any transaction of Rs.2,25,000/- with the accused and the complainant has asked the accused to issue cheque as a written security to complete the sale transaction. The accused has also produced the draft of proposed sale-deed at Exhibit 63. On going through draft sale-deed Exhibit 63 it can be seen that the proposed sale-deed was to be executed in between complainant and Sitaram Bhunde. It shows that there is no role of accused in the capacity of vendor. On going through all these admissions by the complainant the learned Magistrate observed that it can be said that there was no any transaction of sale as alleged in between complainant and accused nor complainant ..(4).. has paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the accused towards the consideration for sale of plot. The admissions show that there was no transaction in between the complainant and accused and the cheque in question just issued as a security. In other words, it can be said that there is clear cut admissions of complainant that cheque was not issued towards discharge of liability. 5. Looking to the evidence on record,I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)