( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 195 OF 2009 Anil Babulal Kataria APPLICANT VERSUS Vijay Balasaheb Kale RESPONDENT .... Mr. L.B. Pallod, advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 9th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant challenges judgement of acquittal in criminal case, for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the demand notice was duly served on the respondent. The respondent (accused) did not reply that notice. It further appears that the respondent did not lead any evidence in support of his defence. Even so, the learned Magistrate accepted his defence that the ( 2 ) applicant could be dealing in money lending business and the prosecution could be of advancement of money on interest and the cheque in question might have been obtained by way of security. The matter requires consideration. The learned Judicial Magistrate appears to have overlooked the effect of presumption available under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in its proper perspective. In this view of the matter, the application for leave to appeal is allowed. Leave to appeal is granted. 3. Admit the appeal. 4. Call for record and proceedings. 5. Print is dispensed with. 6. The appellant to furnish private paper-book within ten (10) weeks. 7. Liberty to mention for expeditious hearing. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln195-09