1 Appln 5255-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5255 OF 2010 Ashokkumar Santokchand Jain .Applicant V/s. Ramakant Babhulnath Tiwari & anr. .Respondents Mr.Ashokkumar Dubey, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.A.R.Pandey, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 28TH JULY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an appeal against acquittal of respondent No.1 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant came up with the case that the respondent was 2 Appln 5255-2010 his friend and he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent as friendly loan by withdrawing the amount from his bank. These amounts were paid between 16th June, 2004 to 5th April, 2005 on various dates. Towards repayment of these loans, six cheques were issued by the accused. Those cheques were put for realization in the year 2007, after the accused had revalidated the cheques for 5th March, 2007. They were dishonoured and therefore, a complaint has been filed. The defence of the accused which was accepted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was that the accused had as far back as on 9th June, 2003 written to the bank vide Exhibit 40 to stop payment of those six cheques. The accused had issued a notice to the complainant on 14th April, 2005 stating the circumstances in which six cheques were issued in the year 2003 and demanding return of those six cheques. This notice was replied by the complainant in July, 2005 which has been 3 Appln 5255-2010 mentioned in the complaint itself. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there was admission of the respondent having reissued those six cheques but could not locate that admission anywhere on record. The cheques undisputedly was issued in the year 2003 which has been scored of and the date 5th March, 2007 was put. If the transactions were particularly loan transactions from 16th June, 2004 to 5th April, 2005, the reason for writing those cheques in the year 2003 is not clear. In any case, if the cheques were not written in the year 2003, there was no occasion for the accused to write a letter to the bank on 9th June, 2003 to stop payment of those cheques. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant had come to the Court with not just half truth but possibly a lie. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, justified in refusing to believe the complainant and holding that the cheques were not given for any legally 4 Appln 5255-2010 enforceable liability or debt. In view of this, leave refused. Appeal dismissed. 3. Criminal Application stands disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)