1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 899 OF 2010 ( Jagdishsingh Shri Madansingh Jalal Vs. Girish Vasantrao Khobragade ) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri Amit Khare Adv for applicant. Shri Wandre Adv for non applicant. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. DATED: 1st JULY, 2011. . Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Perused the judgment dated 16/11/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case No. 15769 of 2009 whereby the respondent came to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Before the Court the appellant examined himself and produced relevant documents. On behalf of the respondent neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. 2 The respondent was an employee of the appellant. When stock was inspected it was found that there was defalcation of Rs. 1,25,000/- and audit were not accounted for. The respondent/accused admitted his liability and to discharge that liability issued cheque in favour of the appellant for sum of Rs. 27,000/- and odd. When it was presented to the bank same was dishonored for insufficient fund with an endorsement "stop payment". In para 12 of the judgment learned Magistrate stated that respondent admitted his signature on the cheque and, therefore, statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises in favour of the appellant. Learned Magistrate in para 13 further observed that the respondent did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. What weighed with the learned Magistrate in disbelieving the case of the complainant was that, he failed to produce the documents pertaining to the misappropriation alleged to have been committed by the accused and the documents like Audit Report. In this view of the matter there is a good ground to 3 grant leave to file appeal. Leave as prayed for is granted. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts the service on behalf of the respondent, hence action under Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code is dispensed with. JUDGE svk