1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1611 OF 2009 Syed Aminoddin (Khurshid) ..... APPLICANT V E R S U S Motiram S/o Ashruba Levde .... RESPONDENT Shri. Pravin Waghmare, Advocate holding for Shri. H.S. Bedi, Advocate for Applicant. [ CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. ] DATE : 16/06/2009 ------------------------------------------------- PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri. Pravin Waghmare, counsel holding for Shri. H.S. Bedi, counsel appearing for Applicant. The order of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nanded on 12/3/2009 in S.C.C. No. 3320 of 2004 is subject matter of challenge in this application seeking leave to present Appeal against the order of acquittal under 2 Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged that the complainant had received a cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lac only ) from the accused and on presentation of cheque to the Bank, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The learned trial Judge while dealing with the matter, has recorded finding that the accused has failed to establish that the tender of amount was towards discharge of legally enforcible liability. Apart from this aspect, the Court has also found that the demand notice Exh. 22 is also not in proper form. It does not disclose the date of cheque or its dishonour. There is also evidence to the effect that the accused has informed the Bank on 16/7/2004 i.e. 3 months prior to the presentation of cheque by the complainant to the Bank, informing that the cheques in question have been lost and further requested the Bank to stop the payment. Similarly, one more application was presented with the Bank on 25/10/2004 requesting the Bank to stop payment on account of loss of cheque. It appears that the complainant presented cheque on 21/10/2004, which was returned back by the Bank on account of insufficiency of funds. 3. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the Court 3 reached conclusion that the alleged transaction between the complainant and the accused is not established as a transaction relating to legally recoverable debt or liability. The view adopted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is a possible view reached on proper appreciation of evidence placed on record. Merely because some other view is also possible in the facts and circumstances of the case, is no ground for causing interference in an order of acquittal recorded by the Magistrate. There is no force in the application, hence the same stands rejected. Consequently the Appeal also stands dismissed. [ R.M.BORDE ] JUDGE knp/CRIAPLN1611.09