1 crapn4547.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4547 OF 2010 M/s. Metri Motors, For proprietors Memakaur Triloksing Sethi, Age: 79 years, Occ: Business and Household, R/o. Ward NO.1, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, Through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Sudamrao Rambhau Joshi, Age: 54 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Belapur Khurd, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. ...APPLICANT VERSUS Shri. Vilas Namdeo Yadav, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Nandur, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. K.N. Lokhande, Advocate for applicant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2011 2 crapn4547.10 PER COURT : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. It is not necessary to state the facts extensively. Suffice it to say that the complainant has filed on record a computer print out of ledger account maintained in computer to show that the cheque amount was to be paid by the respondent. The trial Court in Para-29 has observed that, the said computer print out of ledger account was maintained in computer at Exhibit-59 and contents of both Exhibits-59 and 67 are same. 3. In Para-28, the Trial Court has observed thus : “In earlier paragraph I have made it clear that, extract Exh. 59 is not admissible in evidence, as it not fulfill the legal requirements. That apart, I have given minute look to 3 crapn4547.10 Exh. 59. Wherein tractor bill is shown as Rs.4,95,513/-. Amount deposited by accused is shown as Rs.30,000/-. After deducting Rs.30,000/- Rs.4,65,513/- was shown closing balance after 02/03/2006. Therefore, in that extract the fact stated by complainant that accused had deposed Rs.60,000/- is not shown. Second aspect is that he had stated that complainant received amount of Rs.4,65,513/- from I.C.I.C.Bank as sanction loan amount. Whereas in extract Exh. 59 it is shown that Rs.4,00,000/- received from I.C.I.C. Bank. Complainant had deposed that accused had purchased tractor and implements. Prima facie complainant impressed that on the date of purchased of tractor, accused might have purchased the implements. But entry regarding spare balance is shown as Rs.44,487/- as on 02/04/2006. This fact is also raised doubt on the statement of account filed by complainant. Entries does not match to support complainant version. As earlier stated entries in the statement of account can be 4 crapn4547.10 used only for the purpose of proving the entries made therein. Its use cannot be made for saddling the liability. In the case before hand evidence coming through cross examination does not tally with entries shown in extract Exh. 59. For the sake, if one assumed that it may be a mistake while deposing about the amount due, but in cross examination two times complainant stated the fact of amount received and cost of tractor, implements. That apart, witness did not state any explanation for that admission. Bill issued to accused could have played important roll to support the contention of complainant. For the reason best known to complainant, he has not filed it on record.” 4. Therefore, the complainant utterly failed to bring on record to show that the cheque amount was legally recoverable debt from the respondent. The trial Court has made every endeavour to analyse the evidence brought on record and ultimately, reached to the correct conclusion. In my opinion, 5 crapn4547.10 no case is made out for interference. Hence, the application seeking leave to appeal stands rejected. [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/crapn4547.10