1 cri appln 2459.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2459 OF 2009 Raosaheb Deshmukh Nagari Sahkari Pat Sanstha M. Rashin .. Applicant Versus 1. Baban S/o Arjun Ingawale & anr. .. Respondents Shri N. B. Ghute, Advocate, h/f Shri N. V. Gaware, Advocate for the Applicant. None for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 14TH JANUARY, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the avernments in the application, annexerues annexed thereto and the judgment of the Trial Court. This application is filed for leave to file appeal under Sub Sec. 4 of Sec. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2 cri appln 2459.09 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant invited my attention to page 15 of the compilation and submitted that as many as eight documents were placed on record before the Court below which would clearly indicate that there was loan transaction between the applicant and respondent No. 1. However, the Trial Court has recorded the perverse findings that the applicant has not placed anything on record to suggest that the respondent No. 1 had taken loan from the applicant. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this matter requires consideration. The State is respondent No. 2 in this application. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears for the respondent/State, however, none appears for the respondent No. 1. 3. Upon hearing counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 2/State and upon considering para 12 of the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion that, the findings recorded by the Trial Court in para 12 of the impugned judgment are inconsonance with the evidence on record. The Court has observed that, if the complainant fails to bring important documents on record of loan transaction or liability of the accused, it is unsustainable that the complainant 3 cri appln 2459.09 claims protection of presumption as provided U/Sec. 139 of the said Act. The learned Trial Court has elaborately dealt with the said aspect in said para. It is not necessary to reiterate what is stated by the Trial Court in para 12 of the impugned judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, reasonable and possible view is taken by the Trial Court. No case is made out for leave to file appeal. Hence the application stands rejected. [ S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 11