* 1 * Cri.Ren.Appln.33-35.2010 07.01.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 35 OF 2010 Subhash Shantaram Shelke .......Applicant V/S. Sadashiv Raghunath Bhopatkar & anr. .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. H.E. Palwe, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Rameshwar Gite, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for State-respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 7 January, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is a common order on the above three Criminal Revision Applications filed to challenge the concurrent findings of the trial court and the lower appellate court and the decision to convict the applicant under Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act. * 2 * Cri.Ren.Appln.33-35.2010 07.01.2011 2. The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that, respondent no.1 had advanced a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the applicant. Towards repayment of that loan, the applicant had issued three cheques in the sum of Rs.1,05,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.95,000/-. All the three cheques when presented for payment, were dishonoured. Therefore, the respondent filed criminal proceedings against the applicant after serving the statutory notice upon him. The evidence of the applicant in all the three cases is identical. 3. It is contended by the applicant that the only transaction between the him and respondent no.1 was of a hand-loan of Rs. 5,000/- extended around 10 years prior to the complaint. As regards the cheques, the applicant had claimed initially that the cheques were stolen from his custody and that he had infact filed a complaint with the police regarding theft of the cheques. The applicant, however, did not produce the complaint about the theft of the cheques before the Court or any other relevant document. He also did not state as to what was the ultimate result of the complaint. The applicant took another inconsistent defence that he had handed over blank cheques to respondent no.1 which had been * 3 * Cri.Ren.Appln.33-35.2010 07.01.2011 filled up by him. This fact was not disputed by respondent no.1. He had admitted that on the blank cheque being handed over to him, he had filled the same and then presented the same for payment. The Courts below accepted the prosecution evidence holding that the applicant had failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the offence against the applicant stood established. Perusal of the record and the judgment of the Courts below shows that the concurrent findings of the court below are a plausible view in the matter and hence the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Applications are dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]