1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1827 OF 2008. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.508 OF 2008. SOU. NAMITA DEEPAK CHAUDHARY VS MADHAV KUMARIL BHAGWAT AND OTHERS ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R. M. Patwardhan, Advocate for the applicant. Shri N. B. Dewade, Advocate for the respondent 1 & 2 Shri D.B. Yengal, APP for Respondent no.2. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 18th MARCH, 2010. 1. The Criminal Case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, has been dismissed on the ground that the fact namely that the Cheque was dishonoured due to non availability of fund has not been proved. 2. The observations contained in paragraph no.25 of the impugned judgment disclose that the reason assigned further mentions that as the memo did not bear the rubber stamp on Exh.20, the fact 2 of dishonour of cheque is not proved. It is not disputed that no evidence was brought by way of summoning the Bank witness to prove that the account from which the cheque was given did not have adequate credit balance to honour the cheque. 3. In this situation, the reason assigned in paragraph 25 of the impugned order turns out to be insignificant in the background that no efforts were taken to prove what was the crux of the matter. 4. In this situation, the appeal has no merit. The impugned judgment is not shown to be erroneous. 5. Application for leave to appeal and appeal are dismissed. Judge //mule//