( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 260 OF 2009 Rahata Merchants Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Rahata APPLICANT VERSUS Ramesh Kacheshwar Rohom and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Amol Gandhi, advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.B. Vikhe-Patil, advocate for respondent No.1. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The acquittal of the respondent No. 1 in criminal case for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Magistrate is ordered mainly for the reason that the accounts extract though was produced by the complainant, yet, proof regarding the contents thereof was not furnished. The accounts extract (Exh-19) indicated that the respondent No. 1 deposited various amounts from time to time. The respondent No. 1 did not produce receipts to show that the entire amount has been repaid. The ( 2 ) respondent No. 1 did not enter the witness box. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the applicant (complainant) failed to prove that there existed financial liability/debt for the discharge of which the cheque was issued. The respondent No. 1 admitted that the cheque was issued by him. The demand notice was not replied by the respondent No. 1. The accounts extract (Exh-19) by itself may not have been proved but the other aspects of the matter should have been considered viz. availability of presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the conduct of the respondent No. 1. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the leave to appeal is required to be granted. Accordingly, the leave to appeal is granted. The application is allowed. 3. Admit the appeal. 4. The appellant to furnish private paper book within ten (10) weeks. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln260-09