1 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.350 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.350 OF 2009 Dharmeshkumar Fakirchand Agrawal, Age-32 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Limadawadi, Nawapur, Tq.Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Maulya Naupurya Gavit, Age-66 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Sakarda, Tq.Uchhal, Dist. Tapi (Gujrath State) RESPONDENTS Mr.A.G.Magare, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.G.R.Ingole, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Respondent no.2 absent even though duly served. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 28/04/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present criminal revision, the revision applicant has approached this Court questioning the legality of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Criminal Appeal No.7/2008, by which the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by 2 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.350 of 2009 the learned J.M.F.C.Navapur in STC No.790/2002 was set aside. 2. As this is the criminal revision filed u/s. 401 r/w. 397 of The Cr.P.C., the scope for consideration of the legality and correctness of the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court is restricted to only legal submissions. In this criminal revision, the respondent is absent even though duly served, as he is r/o. of another state. 3. It is urged by the revision applicant that there is presumption under the Negotiable Instrument Act that once the cheque was issued and bounced when deposited, then the presumption lies in favour of the complainant, and accordingly the finding was recorded by the First Appellate Court that there is no existing legal debt and on that basis, the appeal was allowed and conviction recorded by the Trial Court was set aside. 4. Perused the record of the case. I have also gone through the judgment of the Trial Court and of the First Appellate Court. It is stated in the complaint so also in the evidence of revision applicant that the existing legal debt, based upon the acknowledgment, purportedly singed by the respondent accused,is marked at Exh.48 before the Lower Court. The stand was taken by the respondent before the Lower Court that there are no transaction between him and the complainant, but he has taken the advance of Rs.2,000/- from the father of the revision applicant herein, way back in the year 1980. He has issued the blank cheque signed by him in token of 3 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.350 of 2009 security against the amount which he has received from the father of the revision applicant. During the trial, the respondents have examined the bank employees to prove that when the cheque was deposited with bankers, which account was opened in the year 1969. In his defence, he has examined the bank employees and also produced the extract of the bank accounts in the year 2002 and in the year 2007. The case rests on the acknowledgment allegedly given by the respondent/accused acknowledging the debt given. During the trial, as the said acknowledgment was disputed, even though the signature on the cheque was admitted by the respondent, the disputed as well as the admitted signatures were referred to the handwriting expert. The report of the handwriting expert clearly discloses that the purported signature of the respondent on the acknowledgment is not the signature of the respondent accused, which was on the disputed cheque. The purported acknowledgment, which was the only base to establish the existence of legal debt between the parties to the litigation and it is correctly observed by the First Appellate Court in para no.12 that, “It is necessary to mention her that the receipt exh.48 purportedly bears the signature of the accused. The said receipt alongwith admitted signature of the accused was sent to Hand writing Expert and as per report of Hand Writing Expert, the receipt was not bearing signature of the accused.” Considering the opinion given by the expert, the learned First Appellate Court arrived to the conclusion that the basis on which the complaint was filed, that document itself is a forged document and there is no existing legal debt and hence the First Appellate Court 4 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.350 of 2009 had come to the conclusion that even though the applicant has established that the cheque is signed by the respondent accused, but the revision applicant/original complainant failed to establish that the said cheque was issued to satisfy/decide the liability towards the legal dues payable. If these are the observations, no legal point is involved, I think there is no need to interfere with the decision rendered by the First Appellate Court. Revision Application sans any merit, dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.rev.350-09