IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2719 OF 2008 Vidya Rajendra Gadakh .. Applicant Versus Shri Prashang Ghandrakant Patil and others .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2720 OF 2008 Manohar Devram Kadam .. Applicant Versus Nalini Satyendra Navle and another .. Respondents Mr.Tushar Sonawane, for the Applicants Mr. P.B. Shah, , for the Respondent No.1 in App.2720/08 Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa AGP for Respondent-State in App.2720/08 Mr. Rajesh More, AGP for Respondent-State in App.27190/08 CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 8th April, 2009 P. C. 1. By the applications, the applicants are seeking leave to appeal against the orders dated 12th May, 2008 passed by the JMFC, Sinnar Dist. Nashik acquitting accused, present respondent no.1 in both the applications, under Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. In both the matters, accused have issued the applicants/ complainants cheques of Rs. 2,50,000/- each against purchase of shares by the accused in both the cases. The cheques in respect of -2- Application No.1720/08 was presented on 4.2.2002 in Dena Dena Bank, Musalgaon Branch. Tq. Sinnar and Cheque in respect of Application No.1719/08 was presented 6.2.2002 in the Nashik District Central cooperative Bank, Sinnar Branch for encashment. The said cheques were not honoured and returned with remark “payment stop”, & “Refer to drawer”, respectively. 3. Admittedly these cheques were post dated cheques issued pursuant to the agreement between the respective parties in both the above matters that the shares would be transferred in the name of accused. However, as per the evidence of Registrar of the Company, the impugned shares were not transferred in the name of accused persons, at the relevant time, were in the name of the complainant/applicants. The learned Trial Judge has taken a view that as the transfer was not complete, no legal debt or liability payable to the complainants dis exist. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submit that under Section 108 of the Companies Act, both the parties were required to produce documents as required under the said Section. Though the Complainant have fulfilled requirement of the production of the documents, the accused failed to produce the documents and, therefore, the transaction was incomplete due to the fault of the accused and as such, there was legal debt or liability on the accused. 5. Assuming that the accused have failed to comply with the requirements under Section 108 of the Companies Act, in respect of production of documents which are required for the transfer of the shares, yet the post dated cheques given at that point of time did not give rise to any legal debt or liability as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The view expressed by the learned Judge is correct. There is no miscarriage of justice. In the result, the Applications for leave to appeal stand rejected. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) jpc/-