1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No.638 of 2006 [Deepaksingh Ramsingh Khase v. Hanumant Rambhau Bhande and State of Maharashtra] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri A.M. Patankar, Advocate for Appellant. None present for R- 1. Shri V.A. Thakre, APP for R- 2/State. CORAM : A.H. Joshi, J. DATE : 2nd July, 2008 1. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the complainant. 2. According to the complainant, a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- was issued by the accused towards consideration of cancellation of documents Exhibits 14 and 17. While the documents, i.e. the original transactions, are in the written form, now the appellant argues that the cancellation is over. 3. The defence raised by the accused is that :- (a) The transaction such as cancellation has not taken place, (b) In fact, cheque issued is for security of the loan which was taken much prior; and, 2 (c) The said loan was already repaid. 4. Considering the effect of cross-examination, it is seen that the preponderance of probability raised by the accused is duly proved. 5. It is not shown that the discussion contained in paras 16 and 17 of the judgment of the Trial Court and conclusions based thereon, which are drawn in later paras, are impermissible from the evidence on record. 6. The appeal, therefore, does not call for interference. No indulgence is called for. 7. The appeal is dismissed. JUDGE LANJEWAR