1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.376/2010 Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Applicant. V E R S U S Chaure Decorators. Respondent. ............................................................................................. Mr. A.N.Nagargoje, Advocate for applicant. Mr. A.M.Gholap ,Advocate for the respondent sole. ............................................................................................. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 4th JULY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant [original complainant] seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2009 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, No.1 Ahmednagar in STC No.2776/2006, thereby acquitting the respondent/original accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 3. Briefly stated the facts of the complainant’s case are as follows :- Complainant is a Co-operative bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. It is alleged that accused had taken loan from the complainant but did not repay the installments regularly and become defaulter. Hence, the complainant initiated proceeding against accused before Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies by filing Dispute No.101/650/2003 on 22.6.2005 and certificate under section 101 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was issued in favour of the complainant and the recovery proceedings thereof was under progress. Meanwhile, it is alleged that accused gave cheque No.69747 on 15.1.2006 of Rs.1,10,000/- drawn in favour of Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Karjakhate Chaure Decorators. The complainant presented said cheque on 25.1.2006 for encashment purpose, but same was returned dishonored and returned unpaid on 27.1.2006 with bank return memo bearing endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’. Hence, the complainant sent demand notice dated 20.2.2006 on 3 21.2.2006 to the accused which was received by him on 25.2.2006 however, accused did not pay said cheque amount. Hence, complainant filed complaint against accused under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. It appears from the impugned judgment that the complainant’s complaint was dismissed and accused was acquitted on following counts : a] Firstly, the complainants witness namely Muralidhar Yeshwant Kulkarni was not authorized person to depose against the accused as per resolution dated 26.9.2003 Exh.20. b] secondly disputed cheque in question was issued in the name of ‘Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Karjakhate Chaure Decorators’ but the complainants witness admitted in the cross examination that there was no such account in the complainant bank and complainant bank was not ‘payee’ of the said cheque in the individual capacity. 5. The defence raised by the accused that complainant obtained blank signed cheque from the accused towards security 4 and same was misused by filing the present case and learned trial court held that accused probabilized said defence. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2009 and record and proceeding with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned respective counsel, finding recorded by the learned trial court cannot be faulted with and the view adopted by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused after analyzing and appreciating the evidence on record is a possible view and same does not appear to be perverse and reasoning given therefor also apparently cannot faulted with. Hence no interference there is in called for in the appellate jurisdiction. 7. In the result, present application which is sans merits stand dismissed. Leave to file appeal is refused. R & P be sent back to the concerned court. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ] JUDGE ... AAA/376.10