1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No.499/2011 in Criminal Appeal No. /2011 ( Santaji Yuvak Credit Co-operative Society Maryadit, Katol, through its power of attorney ..Vs.. Pundlik S/o Daulatrao Dherkar ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M.B. Naidu, Adv. for applicant. Mr. Sudhir Malode, Adv. for respondent. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 8.11.2011. 1. The appellant - original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No.102/2007 decided on 30/6/2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katol is seeking leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused/respondent herein. 2. The appellant is a credit co-operative Society. The loan of Rs.50,000/- was advanced on 10/12/2000 to the respondent which was to be repaid in installments. Out of that the respondent could deposit only Rs.11,500/-. The respondent also delivered blank post dated cheques to the appellant by way of security. When the respondent committed default in making repayment of the loan amount, the appellant presented a cheque of the value of Rs.82,838/- 2 which includes principal and interest. It was dishonoured. 3. Few admissions given by the appellant’s witness weighed with learned Magistrate in dismissing the complaint. It was admitted that the contents in the cheque were filled in by the officers of the appellant Society. Considering this learned Magistrate observed that “from this admission, it is proved that complainant bank was in possession of a blank signed cheque of accused. Nothing is brought on behalf of the complainant bank as to how the bank came into the possession of this cheque. Furthermore, it is not the case of the complainant bank that accused gave them a blank signed cheque and asked complainant bank to fill up the amount. There is no pleading regarding the same and also no mention of the same in notice i.e. Exh.no.28. The complainant bank merely mentions that accused had issued a cheque of Rs.82,838/-, but from the evidence of p.w.1 it raises a doubt regarding issuance of the same by accused. It means that the amount shown in the cheque is not actually due from accused.” 4. It seems that learned Magistrate has ignored the provisions of section 20 and consequently provisions of section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In case of M/s. Sai Auto Agencies V/s. Sheikh Yusuf Sheikh Umar reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1204 this Court has observed that “even if blank cheque has been given towards the liability or even as a security, when the liability is assessed and 3 quantified, if the cheque is filled up and presented to bank, the person who had drawn the cheque cannot avoid the criminal liability arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.” 5. Thus arguable points being involved leave as prayed for is granted. 6. Appeal : Admit. 7. Call R & P. 8. Mr. Malode, learned counsel accepts the notice on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, action under section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code is dispensed with. JUDGE Tambaskar.