1 Farad Continuation Sheet No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.646 OF 2008 IN CRI.APPEAL NO.364 OF 2008. (DILIP BHIMRAO DESHMUKH ..Vs. DHANRAJ MANIKARAO MASKE) ________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.K.Pardhy, Advocate for applicant. Shri A.V.Bhide, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : DECEMBER 02, 2008. 1. This application, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the original complainant seeking leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pusad in Summary Criminal Case No.521 of 2003 arising out of dishonour of a cheque. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, as also the learned counsel for the respondent/ original accused. With the help of both the learned counsel I have gone through the copies of the complaint and evidence, which have been placed on record. 2 3. The Respondent cannot at all make out any grievance in respect of the blank cheques, having issued such cheques in the first place. Evidence tendered by the respondents to show that he had also given such blank cheques to some other person is irrelevant. 4. All the same, appeal against the judgment of acquittal can be entertained only if it is shown that the view taken by the learned Magistrate was perverse or not tenable with reference to the record. In this case, the complainant had examined himself and had stated in his cross-examination that he had never paid any amount, other than Rs.4,50,000/-, to the accused either in cash or by cheque. He denied the suggestion that on 15.12.2001 the accused came to him for receiving the amount of Rs.Sixty Thousand. He denied that on 15.12.2001 he paid a sum of Rs.Sixty Thousand to the accused by cheque and again obtained two blank cheques from the accused. He then volunteered that on 15.12.2001 he had indeed paid Rs. Sixty Thousand to the accused by cheque bearing No.00700349. This admission by the complainant has affected his veracity since it was the defence of the accused that he has infact borrowed only sum of Rs.Sixty Thousand from the complainant. 3 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant did not understand that he was being asked about any other transaction when he said that he had not paid to the accused any sum other than Rs.4,50,000/-. This explanation is an eyewash which has to be rejected, and has been rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate. Two specific questions, directly in respect of the transaction dated 15.12.2001, were asked. This date was also repeatedly put in the suggestion to the complainant and the complainant had audacity to deny these suggestions. His subsequent volunteering is only because he realised that he can not avoid volunteering to state the fact that he had issued the cheque in favour of the accused. This shows that the complainant was not trustworthy and therefore, the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be perverse or improbable. 6. Reliance on the judgment of Gujrat High Court in Satish Jayantilal Shah Vs. Pankaj Mashruwala, reported at 1996 CR.L.J. 3099 and a judgment of this Court in Purushottam Vs. Manohar, reported at 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 210 does not help the appellant because those judgments would only show that if the accused had given blank, signed, instrument, he thereby gave the authority to the holder to complete the instrument. 4 7. In this case, on facts, the complainant's testimony is unreliable and therefore, the acquittal cannot be interfered. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.