-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1088 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1088 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1088 OF 2008 AND AND AND CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1089 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1089 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1089 OF 2008 AND AND AND CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1090 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1090 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1090 OF 2008 Mr. Sanjay Mangallal Shah. ... Applicant. V/s. Mr. Mahadev Narayan Jadhav & Anr. ... Respondents. Mrs. K.O. Maurya for the Applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATE DATE DATE : 07TH AUGUST 2008. : 07TH AUGUST 2008. : 07TH AUGUST 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard learned Counsel. 2. The complainant filed three cases for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before J.M.F.C., Bhiwandi and evidence in all the three cases is commonly recorded and the Judgment is also a common Judgment dated 19.12.2007, whereby the accused is acquitted. 3. The complainant Sanjay Mangallal Shah claims to be proprietor of Mangal Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd., which nomenclature by itself is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The complainant, after cross-examination produced such authorisation at -:2:- Exhibit 98 which was not proved as is required under the law. The complainant did not step in witness box to explain about authorisation. The application below Exhibit 77 dated 10.10.2007 about correction in cause title of the complaint showing the complainant to be Director/Managing Director also came to be rejected. The learned Judge found that the power of attorney which was in favour of the complainant was dated 30.2.2004 and there was no need for the accused to issue cheques on 8.11.2004. The complainant comes with a case of financing Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused and there was a agreement to this effect. He accepts that an amount of Rs.70,000/- is received from the accused while the accused says that he has paid Rs.31,000/- in addition thereto. However, for the reasons best known to disprove this claim of the accused, no ledger or register is produced by the complainant. The parties went to Police and even before the J.M.F.C. seeking the custody of the vehicle. The complainant has a case that there was balance of Rs.75,923/- for which the subject 3 cheques in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each dated 9.11.2004, 10.11.2005 and 15.11.2005 were issued. However, there is nothing to suggest and accept that the matter was compounded between the complainant and the accused to enable the accused to make payment by cheque. -:3:- 4. Thus, the defence taken by the accused in this situation that these blank cheques were lying with the complainant and since there was basic difficulty in the complaint, no fault can be recorded against the order of acquittal. 5. Hence, leave to appeal in all three applications is rejected. (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)