1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRI APPLICATION NO.2223 OF 2007. Ankush s/o Bhausaheb Jagtap Petitioner. V e s u s The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents. Mr. P.S. Tangde, Advocate H/f Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for the petitioner. APP for State. CORAM : V R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 27 th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. Heard. 2- The petitioner filed complaint for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide STC No.800/2004, which has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) and the respondent No.2 has been acquitted. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal. As per the provisions of section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in private complaint case, the special reasons are required 2 to be shown by the complainant who challenges the order of acquittal. In other words, leave to appeal is not to be granted in ordinary course there would appear some special reasons to consider the application. I have gone through the impugned order rendered by the learned Magistrate. It appears that contention of the petitioner regarding hand loan transaction of Rs.1,50,000/- was dislodged by the learned Magistrate on the ground that there was discrepancy about period of payment made by him. Secondly, learned Magistrate noticed that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint to the effect that the petitioner was dealing in money lending business without licence. The petitioner was arrested by the police. The police recovered a motor cycle owner by respondent No.2 alongiwth Rs.5,000/-. The police have charge sheeted the petitioner after completion of the investigation into such complaint. That criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The defence of the respondent No.2 was that though his motor cycle and Rs.5,000/- were recovered yet, the petitioner did not tender the blank cheques issued by him. He had asserted that he was beaten up and 3 was forced to sing the said cheque. The petitioner did not explain as to how the motor cycle of the respondent No.2 was found in his possession. Considering the existence of probability in the defence of respondent No.2 the order of acquittal was rendered by the Learned Magistrate. No perversity is apparent on face of record. Hence leave to appeal is rejected. Appeal dismissed. ( V. R. KINGAONKAR, J. ) ..... aaa/2223.07