( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3916 OF 2010 Shantilal Lakhmichand Porwal APPLICANT VERSUS Sow. Pushpa Devidas Lale RESPONDENT .... Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for the applicant. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 21st October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant. 2. The application is filed seeking leave to appeal against judgement of acquittal rendered in S.T.C. No. 1734/2004 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The parties are dealing in business and were having business relationship in the past. The case of the applicant (complainant) before the trial Court was that due to cordial relationship, he had advanced loan of Rs. three (3) lacs to the respondent. The respondent then issued a post dated cheque ( 2 ) showing date as 15-09-2004. The cheque was deposited at Shrirampur Cooperative Bank for the purpose of encashment. However, it was dishonoured and, therefore, demand notice was given calling upon the respondent to pay the amount. The respondent gave a false reply alleging that there was no legal liability to pay such amount. The learned Magistrate discarded the version of the applicant for the reason that there were adverse findings rendered against him while dismissing Special Civil Suit No. 36/2007 filed for recovery of the same amount shown under the cheque in question. Another important reason for which the dismissal of the complaint was ordered is that the applicant is a commission agent dealing in real estate as well as deals in business of gold as a partner alongwith his brother and they run a partnership firm. The accounts of the partnership business did not reveal any entry regarding the advancement of the amount of Rs. three (3) lacs to the respondent. The applicant is income tax payer, yet, no such transaction was shown under the income tax return filed by him for the relevant year. The applicant did not give the money by obtaining any acknowledgement/receipt, nor the particulars about the date of payment of such amount are noted/jotted down in any diary or like record. Considering the attending circumstances, the ( 3 ) learned Magistrate declined to place implicit reliance on the version of the applicant. It is argued by learned advocate for the applicant that appeal is filed against the judgement of the Civil Court and the same is pending before this Court and, therefore, findings of the Civil Court cannot be regarded as a final adjudication of the claim. It is true that such findings are subjudice in the first appeal filed by the applicant. Still, however, the adverse findings rendered by the civil Court would show that there is a scope to entertain a reasonable realm of doubt regarding veracity of the claim put forth by the applicant. Needless to say, the benefit of reasonable doubt goes to the respondent and as such, the judgement of acquittal need not be reviewed by allowing the application seeking leave to appeal. The application is, therefore, dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3916-10 ( 4 )