IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.504 OF 1997 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.505 OF 1997 Gayatri Traders, C/o. Ramesh Manohar Talathi .. Appellant (In both the appeals) Versus Sandeep Babaji Sakpal & Anr. .. Respondent (In both the appeals) Mr.Santosh J. Parad and Mr.Milind A. Ingole with Mr.S.D.Rupawate for the appellant in both the appeals. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the State in Cri. Appeal No.504 of 1997. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P for the State in Cri. Appeal No.505 of 1997. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 25th March 2009. : 25th March 2009. : 25th March 2009. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: . These two appeals against orders of acquittal can be disposed of by a common judgment and order. The appellant is the complainant in a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In both the cases reliance has been placed by the appellant on cheques allegedly drawn by the 1st respondent on (2) Jijamata Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. According to the appellant, the said cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, notices of demand was issued and thereafter the two separate complaints were filed by the appellant alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the said Act. The acquittal is on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and especially section 49A thereof, Jijamata Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd had no authority to allow withdrawal of amount by cheques. The second finding recorded by the learned Judge is that the purported cheque was in fact not a cheque but it was a withdrawal slip. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited my attention to various provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1949). He submitted that the provisions of the said Act of 1949 are applicable to a Co-operative Credit Society duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. He invited my attention to section 6 of the said Act which defines "cheque" to mean a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise on demand. He submitted that the section 6 (3) read with section 5 of the said Act clearly shows that the instruments subject matter of these two appeals are nothing but cheques. He submitted that the provisions of the said Act have to be interpreted in the light of the objects sought to be achieved and therefore, such a narrow interpretation cannot made. He placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd v. M/s.Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd (AIR 2001 Supreme Court 676). 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the complaint and notes of evidence. The instruments described as cheques in both the cases have a title "challan". Below the title the name of Jijamata Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd, Mahad, Raigad has been printed. The English translation of the said document reads thus: "M/s.Gayatri Traders (Ramesh Talathi) to be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- by debiting the same to account No.35 held by Sandip Babaji Sakpal." The said Sandip Babaji Sakpal is the 1st respondent accused. M/s.Gayatri Traders is the (4) complainant/appellant in both the appeals. The instrument is signed by the 1st respondent accused. There is already a finding recorded in favour of the appellant that the provisions of the said Act 1949 are applicable to the said credit society. In the cross-examination of the appellant a suggestion was given that the instrument was not a cheque but it was withdrawal slip. The correctness of the said suggestion was denied by the appellant. 4. The applicant examined P.W.No.2 Prakash Mahajan who was working as a Manager of the said Jijamata Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. In the examination-in-chief P.W.No.2 stated that a cheque-book has been issued by the said credit society to the 1st respondent. He has described the instruments as cheques in the examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination, the attention of the witness was invited to the instruments which according to the appellant were cheques. The response of the P.W.No.2 reads thus: ". ... It is true that our branch had issued a withdrawal slip to Sandip Babaji Sakpal. The withdrawal slip now shown to me is the same. It is of Rs.20,000/- dated 15.11.95 (5) is not a cheque. According to me there is only one signature required on the cheque in his front side. In the withdrawal slip it is a procedure that the customer has to sign on both the sides of withdrawal slip. Accordingly I have obtained both the sides of the withdrawal slip the signature of Sandip Babaji Sakpal. It is a procedure that the saving account holder is only entitled to get an amount which was returned on the withdrawal slip. The back signature of withdrawal slip is obtained on the counter when the amount is given. The purpose is only to tally both the signature to the signature of specimen signature given by the customer. The withdrawal slip today produced by the learned advocate Shri. Sable alongwith list at Exhibit 19 and withdrawal slip of Exhibit 12 are the same withdrawal slip. The Jijamata Co-operative Credit Society has prepared slips like cheque. However, it is not a cheque but it is a withdrawal slip. ..." Thus, the P.W.No.2 examined by the appellant himself stated that the instruments on the basis of which (6) complaints were filed are not cheques but the same are withdrawal slips. In the further part of the cross-examination P.W.No.2 admitted thus: ". ... It is true that I had deposed in examination-in-chief that I had issued cheque No.4861 to 4880 are not cheques but withdrawal slip. It is true that I had entered in the account registered of Sandip Babaji Sakpal as a withdrawal slip and not cheque. It is true that I had deposed in examination-in-chief that at Exhibit 12 is a bearer cheque but according to me it is not a bearer cheque it is withdrawal slip." Therefore, in the impugned judgments and orders the learned trial Judge has taken a view that the alleged cheques are not the cheques within the meaning of the said Act. The said finding is consistent with the evidence of P.W.No.2 Ramesh Talathi who was the manager of the said Credit Society and who was examined by the appellants himself. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Judge that the instruments were not cheques is certainly a possible view. No case is made out for (7) interference in these appeals. Appeals are accordingly dismissed. (A.S.Oka,J)