- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.918 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.918 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.918 OF 2008 Laxminarayan Tailor C.A.of Prop.of M/s.Bharat Textiles ...Applicant vs. 1.State of Maharashtra 2.Vikram Jain Prop.M/s.Ranjan Traders 3.Pravin Jain Manager of M/s.Ranjan Traders ...Respondents Mr.B.R.Patil i/b Mr.Ujwal Agandsurve for the applicant Mr.R.Satyanarayan for the respondent No.1 Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 26,2009 : MARCH 26,2009 : MARCH 26,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the applicant and the Advocate for the first respondent. This is an application for special leave to prefer an Appeal. By the impugned order, the second to fifth respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. Perusal of the complaint as well as affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the applicant shows that a specific case is made out that the applicant has supplied goods to M/s.Lifestyle. The case of the applicant is that M/s. Lifestyle is a sister concern of the accused. M/s.Lifestyle was liable to pay price of the goods sold in discharge of the said liability. The cheque in dispute was issued by the first - 2 - accused which was delivered in presence of the second accused. The trial court has passed an order of acquittal on the ground that the applicant has failed to establish that M/s.Lifestyle was the sister concern of the accused. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant invited my attention to the findings recorded by the learned Judge and submitted that there was material on record to show that M/s.Lifestyle was sister concern of the second accused and the second accused accepted the liability of the sister concern. 4. Perusal of the complaint and affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief shows that the cheque was issued by the first accused (second respondent). The complainant has stated that it was issued in presence of the second respondent (third accused). Only on that ground the second accused (third respondent) cannot be held liable under section 138 of the said Act. As far as first and second accused are concerned, even according to the case of the applicant, the cheque in dispute was issued in discharge of the liability of a third party. There is no document placed on record executed by the first accused (second respondent) to show that the said respondent had undertaken to discharge the liability of the third party. 5. In the circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned - 3 - Judge of acquittal is certainly possible finding. No interference is called for. Application is rejected. 6. It is made clear that none of the observations made in this order shall be construed as any finding on rights and liabilities of the parties and the findings shall be confined to merits of the application made for grant of special leave to prefer an appeal. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE