1 appln 228 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.228 OF 2011 Shri. Jayantilal Kasturchand Gilecha .. Appellant. -versus The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents. Ms. Sima S. Jain i/b Chaturvedi & Associates for the applicant. Mr. N. R. Bubna, for respondent NO.2. Smt S.V. Sonavane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 8th November, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, recorded by the learned J. M. F.C. Satana, District: Nashik, in Summary Case No.105 of 2007, for dishonour of two cheques of Rs. 75,000/- each. The learned Magistrate seems to have held that though the accused had not disputed his signatures on the cheques and that presumption under Section 139 was attracted, the presumption was rebutted because the complainant’s evidence about advance of Rs.2,00,000/- was not believed by the Court. He had also held that the agreement between the complainant and the accused for securing job for the complainant was not legal 2 appln 228 of 2011 consideration and therefore, he proceeded to acquit the respondent. The observations made by the learned Magistrate about advance of Rs.2,00,000/- by complainant need a careful scrutiny, since, whether the complainant had advanced a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- or not should not have been so material, as to the question whether the accused could explain the circumstances in which he had issued cheques. That does not appear to have been dealt with by the learned Magistrate in the judgment. As far as legality of consideration is concerned, had the accused sought to enforce the payment of money from the complainant for securing a job, this argument was valid. The accused was refunding the money taken by the accused for securing job for the complainant. Therefore, the question of legality of consideration was possibly understood by the learned trial Magistrate in the context which would require scrutiny. Hence leave granted. Appeal Admitted. Call for Record and proceeding. Since learned counsel for the respondent is appearing, action under Section 390 of Code of Criminal Procedure is dispensed with. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)