1 A IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.777 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Horizon Acquaculture Pvt.Ltd. .. Applicant V/s. Dahanu Fisheries & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.N.K.Thakar i/b. Mrs.Dimple Shah for the Applicant Mr.S.P.Kadam for Respondent No.2. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : JUNE 18TH,2009. P.C. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. It is the leave petition filed by original complainant to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the matter of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Reportedly, defence of Respondents accused as to limitation for filing the 2 complaint starts from issuance of first demand notice and as such the complaint filed on particular date became time barred, was accepted by the trial Magistrate. Also the second defence as to there was no legally enforceable liability to pay the alleged cheque amount, is also accepted by the trial Magistrate. 2. Counter to above defence, reliance is placed on the ratio propounded in the authority cited by the learned counsel for the applicant : “(2009) 1 S.C.C.500 S.L.Constructions & Anr. V/s. Alapati Srinivasa Rao & Anr.” It is submitted that if there is some error in sending the first notice then, repeated notices and multiple presentation of cheques are allowed. It is further submitted that on first deposition and the dishonour, earlier notice was sent by mentioning the accused as sole proprietor. In fact, it is a partnership and thereafter second time the cheques were presented and after second dishonour, notice was sent on the name of partnership firm. This aspect has not been considered by the trial Magistrate, further argued. It is also submitted that the signatures of the accused on the 3 dishonoured cheques are not denied and as such there should have been acceptance of the presumption envisaged by sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Considering the rival submissions and the factual position as mentioned above, there appears to be the issue which can be tried before this Court in an appeal so as to ascertain the correctness and legality of the impugned order. Hence, the leave petition is allowed. 4. Appeal be admitted. 5. Call for R & P, if earlier not called. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)