1 Appn.: 4822/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4822 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Shri K.P. Ramchandran Nair .... Applicant Vs. Mr. G. Prakashan Nair & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Pratap Bhosale, Advocate for applicant Mr. V.R. Bhosale, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 12th January, 2011 P.C. 1. This application is for leave to file appeal to challenge the judgment and order dated 7th September 2009, by which the Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai acquitted respondent no.1 of the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial Court held that the applicant had failed to prove that the cheque issued were in discharge of legally enforceable liability of the respondent towards the applicant and that he had served demand notice upon the respondent no.1 within the specified period and that repsondent no.1 had failed to make the payment. 2. The brief case of the applicant was that in the month of January 2 Appn.: 4822/2009 2006, he had given a friendly loan to respondent no.1 in a sum of Rs.30,000/- and respondent no.1 issued the cheque in question dated 6th February 2008 towards repayment of the loan. The cheque when presented for payment had dishonoured leading to the complaint. The defence of the respondent was that there was no transaction of loan between him and the applicant. Respondent no.1 had taken loan of Rs.15,000/- from the son of the applicant which was to be repayed within a period of 4 months. The amount was repayed by respondent no.1 by depositing the amount in the account of the son on 6th December 2006. He alleged that a cheque in question given by way of security to the son of the applicant towards repayment of the loan have been misused by the applicant. Respondent no.1 not only examined himself in support of his case but also produced receipt for the amount deposited in the account of son of the applicant. 3. In view of the above evidence, it was necessary for the applicant to establish that the cheque in question had been issued towards legally enforceable debt due from respondent no.1 to the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant has not produced any evidence to corroborate that in the month of January 2006, he gave loan of Rs.30,000/- to the applicant. The trial Court also noted that the cheque in question bears signature of “Prakash G. Nair” and not “G. Prakashan Nair”. After service of summons, Prakash G. Nair appeared before the Court and submitted that he 3 Appn.: 4822/2009 was not G. Prakashan Nair but his name was Prakash Gopalkrishnan Nair. The complainant in his evidence claims to have been given loan to G.Prakashan Nair and not to Prakash G. Nair. The Court found that there was no evidence before the Court to show that G. Prakashan Nair and Prakash G. Nair is the same person. The applicant, admitted in his cross-examination that he had received the cheque in question from Prakash Nair. The cheque was a blank cheque. He had filled up the name of the payee and the date on the cheque and tried to encash the same. In the circumstance, the trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent no.1 and dismissed the complaint. There is no need to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Hence, the application is dismissed. (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J)