1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 268 of 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2011 Bahubali Zilla Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit .. Applicant Versus Smt. Chhaya Babaso @ Baburao Tapkire & Another ...Respondents Mr. Pravartak Pathak with U.P.Warunjikar for Applicant. Mrs.U.V.Kejriwal, APP for State. CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 7th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent faced trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Jaysingpur in Summary Criminal Case No.199 of 2007. The learned trial Judge by his Order dated 6th October, 2010 acquitted the respondent for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 6th 2 October, 2010, criminal appeal is filed. As per the provisions of law, criminal application is filed to seek leave to file appeal. 2. I have, with the assistance of learned Counsel Mr. Pathak perused the record. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class has rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that the applicant society has not proved the various transactions by proving the books of account and other statements which were produced before the Court in accordance with the provisions of law. It is to be noted that the only witness examined by the complainant was one Mr. Magdum. No other witness was examined to prove the documents which were produced before the Court. It is noticed that those documents have been marked as exhibits with serial numbers. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class has observed that they are not proved in accordance with the provisions of law. He has observed that Mr. Magdum was not the person who could say to prove the said documents. The view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class is right, in as much as there is distinction between the 3 production of documents in the course of evidence and proof thereof. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class, so as to dismiss the complaint are proper. No interference is required. Hence, criminal application is rejected. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)