..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.874 of 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] Shri.Anant Dinkar Kharkar. ..Applicant. Versus Mr.Nitin Govind Shinde and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.S.D.Dharmadhikari, Adv. for the Applicant. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant-original complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the the judgment and order dated 29th December, 2006 passed by the learned JMFC, Kolhapur in SCC No.1910 of 2005. By the said judgment and order the learned JMFC acquitted the respondent No.1-original accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. ..(2).. 3. I have perused the judgment and order dated 29th December, 2006 as well as the evidence on record. After going through the same, it is seen that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 4. The case of the complainant is that he has given an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent-accused by way of cash and cheques. His case is that the said amount was given in parts from time to time to the respondent-accused. The learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that there was no legal debt or liability. The extract of the accounts of the complainant show that the cheque in the amount of Rs.19,000/- was given to the respondent-accused on 4th October, 1999, amount of Rs.14,000/- was given on 18th June, 2001 and amount of Rs.16,000/- was given on 24th October, 2001 to the respondent-accused. The extract of accounts which is at Exh.15, reveals that only an amount of Rs.49,400/- was given to the respondent-accused by the complainant. However, the complainant has failed to show how he has arrived at the figure of Rs.1,50,000/- which he claims that he has advanced to the ..(3).. respondent-accused. The complainant has not brought on record the specific date or period when he advanced the cash amount to the respondent-accused in respect of figure of Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant has admitted that he has not shown the amount advanced to the respondent-accused in his Income Tax return nor mentioned it in his accounts book. Useful reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Vasudev Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vasudev Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vasudev Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vilas Shripati Kamble Vilas Shripati Kamble Vilas Shripati Kamble reported in 2006(2) Bombay 2006(2) Bombay 2006(2) Bombay C.R.(Cri.) 1 C.R.(Cri.) 1 C.R.(Cri.) 1, wherein it is observed as under : "The observation seen by the trial Court that amount allegedly paid by complainant during period has not been reflected in income Tax returns as well as in books of account. Reasons recorded by the court below on appreciation of evidence on record, impugned judgment cannot be said to be unreasonable and perverse." 5. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the accused-respondent has admitted ..(4).. his liability which can be seen from the document at Exh.28. Exh.28 is an agreement. The case of the respondent-accused is that his signatures were taken on blank papers. On perusal of Exh.28, it reveals that the signature of the respondent-accused is obtained at the end of the stamp paper. When the respondent-accused has specifically denied the agreement, the complainant ought to have examined the persons who were witnesses to the agreement. However, the complainant has failed to do so. In the absence of any cogent or corroborative evidence, it will be unsafe to rely on Exh.28. From the evidence on record, it is seen that the complainant failed to prove that he advanced an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as hand-loan to the respondent-accused. The reasons recorded by the Court below on appreciation of the evidence on record, cannot be said to be unreasonable. 6. Looking to the above facts and evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. ..(5).. 7. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then mere circumstance that the lower Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)