1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.694 OF 2011 (M/S. SANTAJI KRUSHI KENDRA //VS// RAMKRUSHNA LAXMANRAOJI NASARE) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.K.R. Lule, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is original complainant in Criminal Case No.679 of 2003 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi. The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheque for want of funds which the respondent/ original accused had issued in his favour for a sum of Rs.47,735/-. The complainant entered the witness box and proved the documents like cheque, intimation received from the bank about dishonour of cheque etc. The learned Magistrate in paragraph 8 of his judgment observed that the respondent had not disputed the fact of issuance of cheque Exh.20 in favour of the applicant. It was also not disputed that the respondent used to purchase goods from the complainant on credit. Respondent had come out with a specific defence that the amount due from him was already paid. The learned Magistrate was of the view that on the basis of the facts, it was appropriate to draw inference under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ultimately convicted the respondent and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a 2 period of six months and to pay fine of ` sixty thousand. In an appeal carried to the Sessions Court, Wardha the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the appellant had failed to prove that cheque was issued to discharge the existing liability. The learned Additional Sessions Judge conducted detailed exercise of examining the bills, credit memos to find out whether there was existing liability of the respondent and in lieu thereof the cheque was issued. In paragraph 18 the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that : “.... So cumulative effect of all these facts and failure of respondent No.2 to give details of outstanding amount or liability of appellant, drives the Court to conclude that the defence story is more and more probable.” In fact, it was the case of the appellant that the respondent owe `47,735/- to him and to satisfy that liability the cheque was issued. The question of examining details of outstanding amount or liability of the respondent/ accused prima-facie appears to be not relevant. In that light of the matter, I find that arguable points are involved. Hence, leave, as prayed for, is granted. Appeal : ADMIT. Action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. JUDGE RR..