1 Appln 49-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.49 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.51 OF 2011 Smt. Najma Mohommad Khochikar .Applicant V/s. Kashinath Rau Bhogam & anr. .Respondents Mr.Chetan G. Patil, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. These three applications for leave to file appeals against Judgments of the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C., Kolhapur have to be allowed because first the learned Magistrate 2 Appln 49-2011 did not apprehend the exact nature of the burden to rebut presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the accused. The learned Magistrate expected the Complainant to prove documents pertaining to the transaction out of which liability of Rs. 2,35,000/- arose and which led the accused to issue three cheques which were dishonoured and leading to filing of the complaints. The learned Magistrate also seems to have mixed up the notices issued in the three cases, since she decided the cases together. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 places reliance on the Judgment in Kundan Lal Rallaram v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay, reported at AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1316 in relation to Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the presumption under Section 118 can be rebutted by pointing out that the evidence was withheld by the Complainant. First, this Judgment came in the context of the Civil proceedings. Secondly, it was in relation to 3 Appln 49-2011 provision of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thirdly, there was no burden in this case on the complainant to prove documents pertaining to the earlier transaction or the cheques by which the complainant had stated having paid the amount to the accused. If the accused wanted to deny receipt of payment by such cheques, he should have very well pointed out from the record of the Bank that he had not received any such cheque. Leave granted. 3. Admit. 4. Call for R & P. 5. Action under Section 390. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)