1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1613 OF 2009 Gopaldas s/o Hiralal Agrawal .. Applicant Versus Ashok s/o Rameshwar Agrawal and ors. ..Respondents Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for applicant Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondent No.1 Ms.Sadat Kazi, Advocate holding for Mr.J.R.Shaikh, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 31st AUGUST 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application filed by the applicant/original complainant in Criminal Trial No.95/1998 being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents of offence punishable under Section 420, 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, by judgment dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Jalgaon. 2. It appears that the applicant, who was a borrower of the Khandesh Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jalgaon had repaid the entire loan and towards the repayment of the loan had presented various cheques. The receipt of the aforesaid cheques was acknowledged by the then Manager of the said Society. It further appears that the aforesaid 2 cheques were mis-utilised by the respondents 1 and 2 and an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was alleged against the present applicant. The applicant, however, came to be acquitted in the aforesaid case. The applicant had filed a complaint alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 herein had committed an offence punishable under Section 420, 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code as they had mis-utilised the cheques, which were tendered by the applicant. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on the ground that the originals of the aforesaid cheques had not been produced by the applicant and, therefore, the photocopy of the said cheques could not prove the tendering of the cheques or the entrustment of the cheques to the said Society. The trial Court also recorded a finding that no permission was obtained by the applicant for leading secondary evidence on the grounds mentioned in Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The trial Court further came to the conclusion that no evidence was led by the applicant to show as to who had written the aforesaid cheques and there was no evidence to indicate as to when the accused were appointed as the Chairman and Manager of the Khandesh Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,Jalgaon. 3. We have heard Mr.Sant, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondents. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court and upon such perusal, we do not notice any perversity in the 3 reasoning of the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the trial Court appears to be a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. In that light of the matter, there being no merit in the present application, the application is dismissed. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/1613.09criappln)