IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1015 OF 2007 (LEAVE TO APPEAL) The National Co-operative Bank Ltd. .. Applicant v/s. Shri A.M. Trivedi, Proprietor of Karithan Enterprises .. Respondent Mr. Sandeep Velkar for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. DATED : 6TH AUGUST, 2007 P.C. Heard Mr. Sandeep Velkar, learned counsel for the applicant-Bank who had filed complaint being case No.7226/SS/05 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The said complaint came to be dismissed on 20th January, 2007 by the learned Small Causes Judge at Mumbai and hence this application for seeking leave to appeal under section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The trial court noted that the complainant had granted a loan of Rs.16,00,000/- to Prakash A. Trivedi who is the son of the present respondent No.1-original accused No.2. The cheque was issued under the signature of the accused No.1 and it was dishonoured vide bank memo Exhibit 10. Statutory notice dated 5.10.2005 was initially issued against Prakash A. Trivedi and subsequently, another notice was issued to the accused No.2. The trial court held that so far as accused No.2 is concerned, there was no enforceable liability against the cheque issued by the accused No.2 and therefore, the complaint was dismissed. The complainant' s witness Shri Subramanian in his cross-examination admitted that (a) there is no document on record to show that accused No.2 has accepted the liability of his son; (b) accused No.2 did not give any letter to the bank to show that he handed over the cheque to the bank towards the liability of his son; and (c) that there was no agreement between the complainant and accused that they accepted the liability of Prakash A. Trivedi. This witness further in no uncertain terms admitted that the accused did not owe any liability to the bank. 3. In view of the reasoning set out by the trial court in support of his acquittal order and based on the depositions of the complainant' s witness, there is no doubt that the said reasoning does not call for any interference by this court. Hence the leave to appeal is hereby refused and accordingly, application fails. (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)