1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2024/2010 Sandu s/o Deoram Ingle Applicant. V E R S U S Faiyaz s/o Gaiyaz Shaikh. Respondent (orig. accused.) Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate for the applicant-state. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 11th JUNE, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard Mr. P. S. Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2- This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking leave to file appeal against judgment and order dated 25.3.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahta in STC No.4/2006 for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act whereby acquitting the accused i.e. respondent herein. 3- I have perused the contents of the impugned judgment dated 25.3.2010 with the assistance of learned counsel for the applicant. It appears from the said judgment that applicant (original complainant) issued statutory 2 notice to the respondent (original accused) and copy of which is produced at Exh.43 and postal acknowledgment thereof is produced at Exh. 43-A and learned judge in paragraph No.9 of the judgment observed that notice Exh.43 was addressed Faiyaz Gaiyaz Shaikh at Post TTisgaon, Tq. Rahata District Ahmednagar, at present Baragaon Nandur care of Naimbhai Gulab Bhai Shaikh, behind the Mosque, Baragaon, Nandur, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. It is also observed that postal acknowledgment Exh.43-A shows at the place of signature and name signature in English and also in Deonagri script. In Deonagri script the signature shows Faiyaz Gaiyaz Shaikh. The signature in English is beyond comprehensible. The accused denied his signature on notice and denied service of notice. It is also observed in paragraph No.12 of the judgment that accused denied his address of his father-in-law and also his signature on postal acknowledgment Exh.43-A. It is further observed in paragraph No.13 of the judgment that defence of the accused was well known to the complainant but still then complainant has not examined the postman for ascertaining the due service of the statutory notice on the accused although it was well within capacity of the complainant. Ultimately learned judge observed that statutory notice appears to be not duly served on the accused, and accordingly, for the said reasons and for other reasons stated in the said judgment, the respondent-accused was not held guilty and came to be acquitted by the learned trial judge. 4- The aforesaid observations made by the learned trial judge after 3 scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence cannot be faulted with and view adopted by the learned trial judge appears to be possible view to be taken and same does not appear to be perverse. 5- In the circumstances, present application does not bear any substance and same is devoid of merits and therefore same stands dismissed and leave to file appeal stands refused. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) ..... aaa/2024.10