1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1860 OF 2009 Kashibai Mhatarba Dongare .. APPLICANT VERSUS Dattu Soma Barde .. RESPONDENT Shri S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the applicant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 9 th July, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an application seeking leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class – 2, Akole on31-1-2009 in STC no. 137/2002. 2 Applicant / complainant presented complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Magistrate. It is the contention of the complainant that respondent / accused had issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,17,164/- towards the purchase price of goods i.e. country liquor. It is stated that although the goods are received by the accused and the cheque was issued for the amount, on presentation of the cheque with the bank, the same was returned back with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Complainant thereafter proceeded to issue notice to the accused and as the accused has failed to deposit the amount in pursuant to the notice. Complainant proceeded to present complaint against the accused 2 before the learned Magistrate. In response to the notice issued by the Magistrate, accused caused appearance and denied the contentions raised in the complaint. According to the accused, there is no legally enforceable liability created against him and as such, the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act is not entertainable. It is also his contention that he has not received the notice alleged to have been sent by the complainant. Trial court assessed the evidence placed on record and came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the alleged transaction in respect of sale of liquor in favour of the accused and, thus, complainant having failed to prove creation of legally enforceable liability, accused is not liable to be held guilty. It is also held by the trial court that the complainant has failed to establish service of notice on the accused. On both the grounds therefore, the learned trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. 3 I have perused the judgment and order passed by the trial court. View adopted by the learned trial Magistrate is reasonable and based on proper appreciation of evidence placed on record. Merely because some other view is also possible in the facts and circumstances of the case is not a ground for causing interference in the order of acquittal. Application presented by the complainant seeking leave to file appeal therefore stands rejected. Consequently, appeal also fails and stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/criappln1860.09.odt