1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2106 OF 2006 Bansi S/o Jijaba Ghule ... Applicant. Versus Sadashiv S/o Waman Dhanve and another ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.B.Ghute, advocate for the applicant. Mr.N.V.Gaware, advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mrs.R.D. Reddy, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.08.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The application is for leave U/s 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. 3. The applicant instituted a private 2 complaint case against the Respondent No.1 for offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vide SCC No.336/2001. The case of the applicant was that he gave hand loan of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand) to the Respondent No.1 in the sugarcane cutting season of 2000-2001. The Respondent No.1 failed to repay the amount inspite of demand made to him from time to time. Lastly, on 11.7.2001, he issued a cheque drawn on Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch at Arangaon. When presented to the Bank, the cheque was dishonoured. The demand notice issued by him was not complied with and hence, the complaint case was instituted. The contention of the Respondent No.1 was that there were transactions between himself and the applicant/complainant in respect of supply of labours to sugar factory. He examined four (4) witnesses in support of his defence that the cheque was actually issued by way of security in favour of Rajgad Cooperative Sugar Factory during the relevant season of sugarcane cutting in 2000-2001. He alleged that the cheque was obtained by the 3 complainant/applicant and was misused by him. The learned Magistrate appreciated evidence tendered by the witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and held that he discharged the burden U/s 139 of the N.I.Act and on consideration of the reasoning ascribed by the learned Magistrate, it appears that D.W.4 had given an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty five thousand) to the applicant and the Respondent No.1 towards advance for supply of labours to the Rajgad Cooperative Sugar Factory. The tractor and trolley of DW 4 was engaged for such purpose as he was a transport contractor. He narrated that the Respondent No.1 had issued the cheque in question alongwith a stamp paper for repayment of the amount. The version of D.W.2 revealed that he was working as a clerk to attend the Court work of the Sugar Factory. He narrated that the applicant supplied labours for sugarcane cutting in the season 2000-2001. He produced relevant bill (Exh.64). His version also shows that the tractor and trolley of the DW 4 was utilised for the purpose. What appears from the record is that both the parties were working as 4 labour contractors and there were internal transactions between them. It is categorically stated by DW 4 that the blank cheque issued by the Respondent No.1 was handed over by him to the applicant/complainant after the accounts were settled with both the parties. Thus, the Respondent No.1 probabilised his defence that the cheque was not issued in the context of any loan transaction between himself and the applicant. In this view of the matter, leave is refused. The application is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp210606