1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.693 OF 2011 (PRAKSH BALKRISHNA BENDE//VS// DILIP HARINARAYAN NIGAM) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Dilip N. Dani, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No.16607 of 2006 decided on 19th January, 2009 by 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class (Special Court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act), Nagpur holding that the complainant proved all the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and proceeded to convict the accused. This judgment and order of conviction and sentence was assailed before the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2009. By order dated 15th May, 2010 the appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant, the judgment delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the judgment in appeal delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur have been perused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found fault with the notice dated 28.07.2006. This is discussed in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment. According to him, the transaction was for Rs.Two Lacs, whereas, the cheque issued by the accused (respondent herein) was only for Rs.Fifty Thousand 2 and the case was also filed in respect of bouncing of the said cheque. Perusal of copy of the notice dated 15th July, 2006 shows that an amount of Rs.Fifty Thousand was lent to the accused by cheque and which was credited to his account and in lieu thereof the post dated cheque was issued by him in favour of the appellant. By way of clarification it was mentioned in the notice that rest of the loan amount was borrowed by the accused from his wife and son. In that light of the matter, it appears that arguable points are involved. Hence, leave granted. ADMIT. Action under Section 390 of Cr. P.C. JUDGE RR..