( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3276 OF 2007 M/s Shranikkumar Himmatlal & Co. APPLICANT VERSUS M/s Arunkumar Vishwanathappa Devne and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for the applicant. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the respondent No.2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 31st July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant is original complainant. He seeks leave to appeal against order of acquittal rendered in S.T.C.C. 1599/2004. ( 2 ) 3. The applicant’s case before the learned Judicial Magistrate was that he is a trader dealing in business of jaggery. He asserted that the respondent No. 1/accused had purchased jaggery from his shop on credit basis between 17-09-2001 to 24-11-2001. The amount of jaggery bill was Rs. 9,70,989/-. The respondent No. 1 then gave twelve (12) post dated cheques towards payment of the said amount. The cheques bounced when presented to the Bank for encashment. The applicant, therefore, filed separate prosecutions as and when the cheques were dishonoured and the payments were not received inspite of service of notice of demand. Out of the said prosecutions, criminal case bearing S.T.C.C. No. 16001/2004 ended in acquittal. In one of such criminal complaint bearing S.T.C.C. No. 16000/2004, the respondent No. 1 was held guilty. The order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Magistrate came to be confirmed by the appellate Court in criminal appeal No. 40/2005 and the criminal revision No. 115/2007 filed by the respondent is pending before this Court. The defence of the respondent No. 1 is that he had closed business of jaggery in 2001 itself. He ( 3 ) asserted that he had issued the twelve (12) blank cheques by way of security when he was running the business of jaggery and was having deals with the applicant/complainant. He contended that after closing his business, he paid all the amount outstanding against him to the applicant. He submitted that inspite of such a fact, the applicant/complainant misused the blank cheques given to him as security in 2001. 4. The learned Magistrate noticed that in the credit account of the complainant/applicant, there is no signature of the respondent No.1/accused. He noticed that the relevant transactions in the year 2001 were entered into by brother of the respondent No.1/accused, namely, Arun Vishwanath Deone. It has been noticed that the cheque in question bore two (2) stamps of date, one indicated that it was issued in 2001 whereas another indicated that it was in 2004. In the cross- examination, the complainant/applicant stated that in December, 2003, he had received the cheque in question. In his complaint, the applicant had not mentioned the date, month and year of issuance of the cheque in ( 4 ) question by the respondent. There was no reason, whatsoever, to put a stamp of the date pertaining to 2001 on the cheque in question, if it was given in 2003 or 2004. Thus, the learned Magistrate held that case of the applicant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The date, if any, was barred bylimitation, if it is accepted that the cheque in question was given in 2001. The defence of the respondent No. 1 was found to be probable in view of the attending circumstances. The allegation was that the respondent No. 1 gave twelve (12) cheques at the same time. Some of the cheques bear date pertaining to 2001 whereas some of the cheques indicated the year 2004. In any case, the complaint of the applicant did not clarify the fact situation with reference to date of issuance of the cheque and the nature of liability outstanding against the respondent No. 1 at the material time. Considering the fact that in similar cases, some of the matters ended in acquittal and one matter which ended in conviction is subjudice before this Court, I deem it proper to hold that the impugned judgement and order cannot be termed as perverse on prima facie view thereof. Hence, the leave ( 5 ) to appeal is refused. The application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN3276-07