1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2009 [Vinod Balabhau Jillewar Vs. Anagha Anil Joshi] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.B. Naidu, and A.M. Gedam, Advs., for the appellant [absent]. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 26th March, 2010. 1. Perused the impugned judgment. 2. It is seen that the learned Trial Court has dismissed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by recording a finding in para 12 of the judgment, which reads as follows:- 12. ............................. .......However as no legally enforceable liability of Rs. 1,00,000/- is proved against her, she was justified in not acting in terms of notice. &...... 3. The finding above quoted is based on the discussion in preceding paragraphs of the judgment. 4. The learned Trial Judge has noted that the complainant is not sure about the transaction and exact outstanding. 2 5. In this background, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is based on the failure of the complainant to prove existence of a civil liability, for which alleged cheque was issued. 6. Once the complainant comes with a story of antecedent transaction, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not come to the rescue of the holder of cheque. 7. In the result, the judgment impugned is seen to be based on sound reasons to which this Court subscribes, and finds no reason to grant any indulgence. 8. In the circumstances, appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No. of 2010 [Rambhau G. Take Vs. Pramod B. Deshmukh & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.B. Naidu, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent no.2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 26th March, 2010. In view of the order passed in Criminal Application No. 19 of 2010, the appeal does not survive. Judge |Hedau| 4