IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2010 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 358 OF 2010 EDC LIMITED ... Applicant Versus MR. SHIVA JAIDEV PALNI AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. N. K. Sawaikar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.K. Poulekar, Advocate for respondent no.2. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 29th June, 2010 P.C. Applicant/complainant represented by learned Advocate Mr. N. K. Sawaikar. Respondents are duly served. Mr. K. Poulekar, appears on behalf of respondent no.2. None present on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 3. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sawaikar on behalf of the applicant and Mr. K. Poulekar, on behalf of the respodnent no. 2. The complainant had prosecuted the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including section 420 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accused no.1 had taken a loan from the complainant for sum of Rs.1,36,000/- (Rupees One Lakh thirty six thousand only) to purchase a xerox machine. The xerox machine was to be purchased from accused no.2 and accused no.3 had stood as guarantor by loan agreement. On behalf of the complainant two witnesses were examined. Learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused under section 420 of Indian Penal Code has observed that it is not the case of the complainant that the loan was availed for the purchase of xerox machine which was not purchased and accused no.2 did not supply machine to accused no.1. Therefore there cannot be cheating on behalf of the accused no.1 to 3. It appears that establishment of the accused no.1 was inspected after about 10 months, as submitted by learned Advocate Mr. K. Poulekar, and the officer of the complainant found that there was no xerox machine in the said establishment. As rightly observed by learned Magistrate it was not at all the case of the complainant that accused no.1 had dishonest intention in taking the loan and not purchasing the xerox machine. That being the position and for other reasons assigned by learned JMFC, acquittal of the accused cannot be faulted. This is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal. Application is dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. vn