1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3423 OF 2008 M/s Garware Polysters Ltd., applicant. (orig. complainant) V e s u s Dipika Deepak Jariwala Respondent. (orig. accused. ) Shri S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for applicant. CORAM : V R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 27 th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. Heard. 2- Though served respondent is absent. Applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate in summary Case No.5840/2005 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that demand notice was duly served on the respondent. It further appears that he admitted that he issued three cheques drawn on City Co-operative Bank Surat. The cheques were dishonoured by the Bank. The question is whether the defence of the respondent is 2 properly considered by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate appears to have held that the last two cheques out of the three were given as a security as stated by the respondent. No witness was examined by the respondent nor she entered witness box. It appears that there were commercial transactions between the parties. Therefore, it ought to have see whether the cheques were issued in order to discharge the existing financial liability. Considering the nature of material placed on record and having regard to the reasons ascribed by the learned Magistrate I find that this is a fit case in which special leave for appeal is required to be granted. 3- Leave granted. 4- Admit appeal. 5- Notice of appeal returnable on 1 st of September, 2009. 6- Call for record and proceedings. ( V. R. KINGAONKAR, J. ) ..... aaa/3423.08