1 cri appln 4124.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4124 OF 2009 Devgiri Nagari Sahkari Pat Sanstha Ltd... Applicant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Shri S. B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri S. G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri P. B. Rakhunde, Advocate h/f Shri S. B. Bhapkar, for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to para 3 of the impugned judgment and submitted that, the observations of the learned Trial Court relying on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Krishna Bhat V. Dattatraya Hegde reported in 2008 All M. R. (Cri) 1164 are misplaced in 2 cri appln 4124.09 the facts of this case. The counsel also invited my attention to the judgment of the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan reported in CJ and submitted that, the observations of the Trial Court in para 3 that the complainant has to prove initially that, there was existence of legally enforcible debt and liability of the accused is not correct position of law. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, in the light of judgment in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan reported in JT 2010 (5) SC 259, it is the submission of the counsel for the applicant that, since the copy of the agreement was placed on record, even the cheque which was issued in favour of applicant was exhibited as Exhibit 21, where the signature is admitted by the respondent and also the loan amount taken is not disputed by the respondent. In the light of above judgment, it was for the respondent to rebut the presumption U/Sec. 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, the matter requires consideration. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court states the correct position of law and no interference is warranted at 3 cri appln 4124.09 this stage. Upon hearing the counsel for the applicant and upon perusal of impugned judgment, it does appears that, the Court while entertaining the complaint has mainly relied on the case of Krishna Bhat V. Dattatraya Hegde reported in 2008 All MR (Cri) 1164. The Trial Court has not taken into consideration the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court by the larger Bench. Therefore, matter needs consideration. Hence the application seeking leave to appeal from judgment and order dated 03.08.2009 in S.C.C. No. 2838/2006 passed by J.M.F.C., Jalna is allowed and disposed of. 3. The Registry is directed to register the appeal by treating this application as appeal memo. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 11