1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2349 OF 2009 Dr.Veerkumar Padmaraj Dhongde Vs. Motiram Ashruba Levde Mr.P.B.Waghmare,Advocate holding for Mr.H.S.Bedi,Advocate for the applicant Mr.D.Y.Nandedkar Advocate for respondent Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This is an application under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking special leave to file an appeal against the Judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded in Criminal Case No. 355 of 2006. The applicant was the complainant. . His case was that on 20th April, 2005 he handed over loan of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent/accused. It was a friendly loan and in return, the 2 respondent/accused gave him a Cheque of Rs.50,000/- dated 30th July 2005. As per the request of respondent-accused, the applicant deferred sending the cheque for collection till December, 2005. But when the cheque was sent for collection, it failed for want of sufficient balance. On 21st December, 2005 a legal notice was given, to which the respondent/accused sent a reply. The respondent/accused took a very peculiar defence since beginning. He said, that there was no possibility of taking loan from the applicant- complainant on 20th April, 2005. Because, way back, prior to November, 2004 a violent incident took place between the parties and that the respondent had lodged the complaint against the applicant, alleging that he had in his possession the cheque in question and was trying to blackmail him etc. The defence was accepted by the Courts below and it was held that on the day of the issuance of the cheque, there was no legally enforceable liability. 3 3. Having regard to the defence and its peculiarity, I am not inclined to hold that there was any error on the part of the learned Magistrate in accepting the defence of the respondent-accused and dismissing the complaint. Thus, the special leave to file appeal is refused. The Criminal Application stands dismissed. Sd/- DT.: 18TH MARCH,2010 [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.]