[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2850 OF 2006 IN APPEAL NO. OF 2006 IN CRI.COMPLAINT NO.2032 OF 2004 Surendra Ramkrishna Ghaisas ..Applicant Vs. Mrs.Aparna Arun Deshpande and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Girish S.Godbole advocate for applicant Smt.A.S.Pai, A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 30, 2007 DATE : OCTOBER 30, 2007 DATE : OCTOBER 30, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant-original complainant has filed this application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the learned Xth Judicial Magistrate F.C. Pune. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent No.1 of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. [-2-] 3. I have perused the judgment and perused the evidence of the complainant. In the present case, two cheques are involved i.e. cheque Nos. 373232 (Exh.16) and 373230 (Exh.17). No doubt the Respondent No.1-accused has admitted the issuance of two cheques and her signatures thereon, however, according to her said cheques were given as security. According to the complainant, he had given hand loan of Rs.55,000/- to the Respondent no.1-accused and two cheques were given in respect of the said loan. However, it is to be noted that complainant has not mentioned the date of giving hand loan to the accused in his notice, complaint or affidavit. Morever, it is the case of the accused that said cheques were issued for security which she had repaid. Hence, there was no liability towards the disputed cheques. 4. On receipt of the demand notice, the respondent no.1-accused replied to the said notice stating that the said cheques were issued for security which she had repaid. Hence, there was no liability towards the disputed cheques. From the material which has been brought on record through [-3-] the cross-examination of the complainant, it is revealed that the accused-husband received Rs.1 lakh from the complainant towards the agreement dated 2.3.2000 and as per that agreement, accused husband failed to hand over possession of the shop under the agreement till 2.5.2004. The accused husband neither handed over possession of the shop nor repaid the amount with interest to the complainant till today. When the accused husband failed to hand over possession of the shop under the agreement till 2.5.2004 and failed to repay the amount with interest to the complainant, then it is not probable that the complainant has paid hand loan to the accused in the month of June, 2004. From the evidence on record, it appears that there was no existing liability. In view of this fact, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent-accused. Looking to the evidence on record, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 5. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no [-4-] ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 6. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]