1 appln4987-09 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4987 OF 2009 Shri Mohan Bhagirat Ahir .. Applicant/Complainant Vs. Usha Vishwanathan and another .. Respondents/Accused Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat i/by Sanjay S. Gawade for the Applicant Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 7th January, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 25 th August, 2009, passed by the Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khadki, Pune, in Summary Criminal Case No. 736 of 2006. 3. Perused the impugned order, affidavit and the evidence recorded in this case. Indisputedly, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 “popularly known as cheque bouncing case”, came to be registered against the accused. After 2 appln4987-09 verification of the same and considering the documents, namely correspondence of the bank in respect of bouncing of the cheque, cognizance was taken and summons was issued to the accused, who is a lady, employed in the Central Government office, residing at Kirkee, Pune. Cheque amount is of Rs.30,000/-. The accused pleaded not guilty and also disputed the liability. She also filed her affidavit in defence and was subjected to cross examination. 4. Perused the evidence of the accused. Nothing is suggested by the complainant that she was advanced cash of Rs. 30,000/- as hand loan out of a friendly relations. What is suggested is that she was also a defaulter in other two cases filed by the persons other than the complainant. This was brought on record to show that the accused was in need of money. I have minutely scrutinized the complaint. Even in the complaint also and in the notice, nothing is stated about the advance of loan, on what date hand loan was given to the accused. The complainant mostly relied on the legal presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, as regards passing of the consideration amount and its liability. However, the complainant has miserably failed to establish the first transaction of hand loan of Rs.30,000/- given to the accused. Accused denied the liability and also the issuance of cheque and its contents filled in by her. According to her, it is not filled in by her and 3 appln4987-09 it was forged by the complainant. 5. The learned trial Court heard the accused and the complainant and their counsel and recorded findings, which are no doubt found duly supported with goods reasons. Full opportunity was given to the complainant to establish his case. What is proved on record are the documents and the documentary evidence but, the complainant could not satisfy the original transaction of hand loan and that the same is due and recoverable. 6. There is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. All the evidence has been discussed in the light of the authorities cited by both the parties. No interference is required. No case is made out. Leave is refused. 7. The application is rejected. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )