( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1746 OF 2009 Gramin Yuvak Adhar Gramin Bigar Shetki Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Mangalapur APPLICANT VERSUS Sayaji Tukaram Kanvade RESPONDENT ..... Mr. P.V. Barde, advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.K. Shinde, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant challenges order of acquittal rendered in S.T.C. No. 44/2008 dated 03-03-2009 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sangamner. By the impugned order, the respondent came to be acquitted for offence punishable ( 2 ) under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a notice was directed to be issued under section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code for making false accusations against him. 3. On consideration of the rival submissions and the impugned judgement, it is amply clear that after the demand notice, the respondent paid the amount as demanded for which the dishonoured cheque was issued. Therefore, there was absolutely no cause of action for the applicant/complainant to institute the criminal case for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant admitted, during course of cross-examination, that he received the payment of the cheque within 15 days of the demand notice was served, but he did not inform such a fact to his advocate while drafting the complaint. The acquittal of the respondent is, therefore, quite justified and so also the issuance of the notice under section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Mr. Barde would submit, however, that the ( 3 ) compensation of Rs. 3000/- could not have been directed without giving sufficient reasons. It appears that such subsequent order was rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 7th March, 2009. The order dated 7th March, 2009 is not specifically challenged and the prayer clause in the petition does not contain any prayer for quashing of the said order. Considering these aspects, the application is without substance and as such, is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN1746-09