[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2880 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The Nasik Merchants Co.Op. Bank Ltd. ..Applicant Vs. Shri.Madan Sandip Prannath and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Kishor Patil i/b Shri.P.N.Joshi Advocate for Applicant Mr.Vidyesh B.Nashikkar and Nitin Muley Adv.for Respondent No.1 Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for Applicnat-State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-original complainant has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2007 passed by the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate F.C. Nasik in SCC No. 3315 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. I [-2-] have perused the evidence which has been produced by him as well as the judgment and order. 3. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent-accused only on one ground that there is no material on record that the Respondent had been served with notice. 4. Bank Witness Mr.Mukund Pawar has admitted in cross-examination that the notice in the year 2006 was sent to the accused at Shankar Bhuvan, Gharpure Ghat, Gangapur Road, Nasik". So also other documents were sent at this very address by the bank. Therefore, the address of the accused which was known to the complainant in the year 2006 was the address at Shankar Bhuvan, Gharpure Ghat, Gangapur Road, Nasik and even then the notice was addressed to the accused at "6, Jehan Plaza, Behind Kaka Dhaba, Gangapur Road, Nasik". As to what was the reason to send the notice at this different address, it is not stated by any witness. It is clear from these documents that the address which was known to the bank was the address at Shankar Bhavan. It is to be noted here that it is not the say of the complainant that the accused is residing [-3-] at both the addresses nor the complainant has tried to send two separate notices at these two addresses separately. The documents which are relied upon by the complainant at Exhibits 19, 20 and 29 are the documents which show the address of the accused as "Shankar Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Nasik," hence, why notice was sent to Jehan Plaza is not known. The case of the accused is that he has not received the notice. Looking to the evidence on record, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 5. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute [-4-] its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. 6. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 7. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]