1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 296 OF 1998 Mankumar Mangalla Zanwar Aged 42 years Occup. Merchant Prop.M.R.Bhingarwala,R/oWard No.3 Shrirampur,District Ahmadnagar ...Appellant. (Ori. Complainant) VERSUS. 1.Dattatray Kashinath Shinde, Age 50 years occup.Agriculture, R/o Bazar Peth,Belapur,Taluka, Shrirampur,District Ahmadnagar. 2.State of Maharashtra (Through P.P.Aurangabad Bench) ...Respondents (Ori.Accused ) ------------------------------------------ Mr.Joydeep Chaterji,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.S.Bedre,Advocate for the respondent no.1 Mrs. Y.M.Kishirsagar, A.P.P. for respondent no.2. ------------------------------------------ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J ) DATE : 7th September,2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered in Criminal Case instituted on private complaint of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant before the Trial Court was that due to cordial relations he had lent Rs.25,500/- to the respondent as hand loan. The respondent no.1 assured to repay the loan amount. In order to discharge the liability, he issued cheque dated 4th May, 1995. The cheque was presented to the concerned Bank, but it was dishonoured. The appellant issued demand notice dated 8th May,1995, which was duly served on the respondent No.1 on 12th May,1995. The notice was not complied with and therefore, the case was instituted on his private complaint. It was registered as S.C.C.No 720/1995. The respondent denied truth into the accusation. He denied that, he had obtained hand loan from the appellant. He denied that he issued cheque in question. 3. At the trial the appellant examined himself and also examined P.W.2-Prabhat Shinde, who is employee of Co- operative Bank as well as P.W.3 Vilas Kulkarni, who is employee of the State Bank of India, Branch at Shrirampur. The learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) came to the conclusion that, the cheque in question was not issued by the respondent. It was noticed that the cheque was presented by Mr. M.R.Bhingarwala and was drawn in the name of Manukumar Maganlal Zanwar. The appellant could not explained as to how the cheque was handed over to Mr. M. R. Bhingarwala. It appears that cheque was drawn in the name of Mr. M. R. Bhingarwala. The case of the appellant is that he personally gave hand loan to the respondent. He asserted that due to cordial relationship between them, loan transaction was effected. If that was so, cheque should have been drawn in his name. He could not explain the material variation in this behalf. There is no independent corroboration to the version of P.W.1 3 Manukumar, so far as transaction of hand loan is concerned. Needless to say, the appellant failed to prove that the cheque was issued by the respondent in order to discharge any debt or liability for which appellant was legally entitled to recover and seek payment. Considering the reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate and the evidence on the record, there is no sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. 4. In the result, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal is confirmed. ( V.R.KINGAONKAR, J ) MTK/cri.APL.296.98