1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.3010 of 2007 (Sant Tukdoji Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Hinganghat v. Purushottam Shankarrao Janglekar) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri Apurv De, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : A.H. Joshi, J. DATE : 10th July, 2008 1. This is a case where the complainant had adequate notice that the accused had disputed the very fact of issuance of cheque, by denying signature on the cheque. The dishonour memo contained two reasons – first being the signature did not tally and second being the insufficiency of funds. 2. Once the very authorship of the cheque was brought into dispute, insufficiency of funds becomes irrelevant. 3. Considering the fact that the accused had denied signature on the cheque, the complainant had summoned the bank witness to prove the signature. In paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, the relevant observations read as follows : “The complainant in this respect made an application (Ex 41) to call the bank manager of Wardha District Central Co-operative 2 Bank, in order to show that accused issued that cheque with intention to deceive the complainant society, but subsequently, without examining that witness, complainant closed its evidence vide pursis (Ex 43) though on one occasion, the witness was also present in the Court.” 4. This fact alone is sufficient to support the judgment of the Trial Court. There is no ground to show any indulgence. 5. The application is rejected. JUDGE pdl