1 Cri-A-3520-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3520 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Standard Chartered Bank ) a Company incorporated in England by ) royal Charter and having the principal office) at 1, Aldermanbury Square, London, EC2V ) 7SB and one of the Branch offices in India at) 270, D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ) Through Mr. Prashant Laxman Salian Officeer) Supply, Chain Financing, An Authrised ) Official. ).. Appellant Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra ) (The State Police, MRA Marg) ) 2. M/s. Sil VO LIACAL Chemicals Ltd.) Prem Industrial Estate, Sant ) Savata X Road No.1, Mustafa Bazar, ) Mazgaon, Mumbai 10. ) 3. Mr. Hussein Dawoodani, ) A 33, Yuvan Silves Apartment, Mount) Mary Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai - ) 400 050. ) 4. Mr. N. E. Bharwani, ) 904, Kanti Apartments, Mount Mary ) Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050. ).. Respondents (Org. accused) Mr. K.D.Devassy, Advocate, for the appellant Ms U.V.Kejriwal, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. 2 Cri-A-3520-09.sxw Mr. M.v.Rajput, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 14th March, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The present application is filed for leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, respondent No.2 is a company of which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the directors. Respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement with the complainant-Bank on 1.9.2005 whereby a facility of loan was extended to the accused persons and on the same day, they were required to deposit certain blank and inchoate cheques with the Bank which could be utilised for recovery of the legally enforceable liability in future. According to the complainant, certain bills were discounted by the accused-company and therefore the disputed cheque for amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- dated 30.2.2007 was issued by the accused in favour of complainant. It was presented to the Bank for encashment. However, the said cheque was dishonoured and inspite of notice the accused persons failed to make payment. The trial Court, after hearing evidence led by the complainant, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused persons. 3 Cri-A-3520-09.sxw 3. From the contents of the agreement entered into between the parties, it is clear that it was a Flexi-loan agreement and CW-1 Satish Kolhapure officer of the Bank had unequivocally admitted that on 1.9.2005, blank cheques were obtained from the accused persons. At that time, except the signatures of the accused persons, no other contents, nor even the date were mentioned in the same. The amount and the date were mentioned on 30.2.2007 before the cheque was presented to the banker of the accused for encashment. He also admitted that on 1.9.2005, when these blank cheques were obtained by the complainant-Bank from the accused, there was no debt or liability against them. According to the complainant, certain bills were discounted by the accused persons and thereby the Bank had made payments against bills. To show that the amount was due, a statement of account was produced by the Bank. However, the accused persons denied that any bills were discounted. The trial Court noted that no document was produced by the complainant-Bank to show that the bills were discounted by the accused persons and on that count the amount was due from them. It is true that certified copy of the statement of account produced by the Bank is admissible in evidence without production of the original, but that does not mean that the contents are also not required to be proved. If the Bank wanted to establish that the amount was paid, it was necessary for the Bank to produce the document 4 Cri-A-3520-09.sxw showing the discounting of bills. It was more essential, particularly in view of the fact that when the cheques were obtained by the Bank from the accused, there was no existing liability against them and these cheques were not issued by the accused in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability on 1.9.2005. The learned trial court noted that the agreement between the Bank and the accused entered into on 1.9.2005 does not speak about any discounting of bills. It was only about flexi loan facility. In view of these facts, the trial Court came to conclusion that the Bank had obtained the said blank cheques only as a security to be used in future. As the cheques were not issued by the accused on 1.9.2005 in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability, offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not made out. In views of the facts and circumstances, noted above, I find no illegality or mistake in the impugned order. 4. Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)