[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.362 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 IN C.C.NO.1168/SS/2005 Dinesh Champalal Jain ..Applicant Vs. Mrs.Subhadra Damodar Keluskar and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.R.V.Dave i/b M/s.N.N.Vaishnawa & Co. Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 30, 2008 DATE : JUNE 30, 2008 DATE : JUNE 30, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original complainant. 1. The applicant-original complainant has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, Mumbai in Criminal Case No.1168/SS/2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. [-2-] 2. The case of the complainant is that it is a family firm doing money lending business. The three brothers i.e. Mr.Meghraj, Mr.Dinesh and Mr.Tarachand were the partners of the said firm. The respondents-accused were in need of money, hence, the firm advanced loan to the accused. In respect the said loan, disputed cheque came to be issued. As the said cheques were not honoured, complaint came to be filed. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been annexed to the application. 4. The case of the complainant is that it is doing money lending business and it has licence to do the money lending business. However, it is seen that no document has been brought on record to show that the complainant had a money lending licence. No money lending licence has been produced. 5. The case of the complainant is that he had advanced loan in cash to the accused. However, it is seen that the said transaction is not reflected [-3-] in the Books of Account or Income Tax Returns filed by the firm. 6. Though the complainant is income tax assessee, no returns of income-tax or Books of Accounts have been produced by him to show that he had capacity to advance an amount of Rs.4 lakhs in cash and that he had indeed advanced such an amount to the accused. Useful reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Vasudev Vasudev Vasudev Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vilas Shripati Kamble Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vilas Shripati Kamble Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vilas Shripati Kamble reported in 2006(2) Bombay C.R. (Cri.) 1, 2006(2) Bombay C.R. (Cri.) 1, 2006(2) Bombay C.R. (Cri.) 1, wherein it is observed as under: . The observation seen by the trial Court that amount allegedly paid by complainant during period, has not been reflected in Income Tax Returns as well as in Books of Account. Reasons recorded by the Court below on appreciation of evidence on record, impugned judgment cannot be said to be unreasonable and perverse." [-4-] 6. Looking to the above facts, I am not inclined to set aside the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate. 7. Application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]