:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2839 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 M/s.Shimnit Infractures Ltd. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2836 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 M/s. Shimnit Infractures Ltd. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra andors. ..Respondents. Mr. S.D. Nangre with R.M.Pawaand S.P.Nangre for the applicant. Mrs.A.A. More,APP. for the State. Mr. Nitin Jamdar i/by Mr. Kate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 14th July,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. 2. Both these applications raise arguable point of law. One of the ground on which the complaint has been dismissed is that there was no proper authority. The question is whether resolution of the company has been properly interpreted. Apart from this, the other ground of acquittal is liability, is not proved. This aspect also requires consideration. Even assuming that :2: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY the agreed rate was charged at Rs.3,50,000/. It has to be seen whether the accused has discharged his burden to show that even at the lessor rate there was no liability to the extent of the amount of cheque. In such circumstance, leave granted. Both the applications disposed off. It is made clear that the observation made in this order are prima facie. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 1. By a separate order passed today, I have granted leave to file appeals. Hence, both the appeals are admitted. Office to number the appeals. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)