Farad Continuation Sheet No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.206 OF 2008 ( RAMKRISHNA ATMARAMJI WAGHMARE & OTH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH.) ________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri. O.Y.Kashid, Advocate for applicants. Shri D.P. Thakare, A.P.P. for respondent. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 17, 2008. 1. This revision takes exception to the judgments rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, dismissing the applicants' Criminal Appeal No.2/2005 and thereby maintaining order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anjangaon Surji in Regular Criminal Case No.64/1996, whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer S.I. for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. One Thousand each. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. The allegations on which the applicants were prosecuted show that the applicants represented to the complainant that they were officials with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Akola, which had issued recruitment advertisement. They received a sum of Rs.30,000/- in instasllments to secure employment. The complainant latter learnt that he had been duped and therefore, filed report with the police. On completion of investigation police filed a chargesheet. Since the applicants pleaded not guilty to the charge, framed against them, they were put on trial, in course of which the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, who proved that such amount was paid to the applicants. The applicants took a defence that a sum of Rs.Twenty Thousand had been advanced as a hand loan by accused no.3 to the complainant Dilip, after borrowing the same from accused Nos. 1 and 2. It was this amount which was demanded by the accused from the complainant and therefore, the complainant filed a false case. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in course of the cross-examination it was admitted by one of the witnesses that some amount was paid by cheques but the cheque or bank record was not produced. The learned trial Magistrate has rightly dealt with this submission pointing out that the question as to whether the payment was made in cash or by cheque cropped up only in the cross-examination. Therefore, there was no question of the prosecution anticipating that it would be required to prove payment by cheque. In fact, the submission that some payment was made by cheque and therefore, some cheques ought to have produced itself would show that the receipt of money not disputed. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the loan theory has not been dealt with by the Courts below. This is not correct. In para 31 of the judgment of the trial Magistrate he has dealt with this aspect in the right perspective. He has rightly held that if accused Nos. 1 and 2 had advanced money to accused No.3, who in turn lent it to the complainant, accused Nos. 1 and 2 had no business to go to the complainant and seek repayment. The judgments rendered by both the Courts below do not indicate any error warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision is, therefore, rejected. CRI.APPLICATION NO. 3600/2008. In view of above order, this application does not survive. Hence, it is disposed of. JUDGE RR.