1 APPLN-1115.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1115 OF 2011 Milind s/o Kashinath Dongre .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Shri S.P. Munghate for the Applicant. Ms R.M. Gadhavi, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2011 P.C: This is an application for leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 59th Court, Kurla. The respondent/accused had issued a cheque for `70,000/- on 15-12-2009. However, according to the complainant, this cheque for `70,000/- was towards consideration of `3,00,000/- which the accused was to pay to him for purchase of a house. The complainant admitted in his cross-examination that on 15-12-2009 the accused had paid him a sum of `50,000/-. He also admitted in his cross- 2 APPLN-1115.11 examination that in the Deed of Assignment it is mentioned that the accused paid him a sum of `50,000/- plus `40,000/- in cash. Thus, a sum of `90,000/- was paid in cash. The Deed of Assignment, which seems to have been registered on 11-1-2010, recounts this fact on its third page. The remaining amount of `2,10,000/- was paid by cheque No.067341 of the Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited. Therefore, there would be no question of the accused paying further sum of `70,000/- to the complainant. The learned counsel for the applicant has a grievance about the manner in which the written notes of arguments were received by the learned Magistrate on record, as also the fact that the accused had not stepped into the witness box. The accused could discharge the burden on him by showing from the complainant's own evidence that presumption in favour of the complainant were rebutted and in this case the complainant's own admission shows that he had received `90,000/- as mentioned in the Deed of Assignment and `2,10,000/- by cheque of the Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited. Therefore there was no question of the accused being liable to pay `70,000/- towards transaction in 3 APPLN-1115.11 question. In view of this, since the defence was probabilised, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Magistrate was wrong. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)