1 Appln 540-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.540 OF 2010 Kantilal G. Kothari .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors .Respondents Mr.D.G.Kothari, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP, for Respondent No.1 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an Appeal against acquittal of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 ordered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, on the ground that the cheque in question was, in fact, issued in the year 2003 and therefore, the cheque could not have been presented in the year 2006. The Complainant came with the case 2 Appln 540-2010 that he had advanced a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- against sale consideration of the flat to the accused without mentioning any date of such transaction. He then states that in order to discharge the liability in part payment, accused No.1 issued a cheque bearing No.887903 dtd. 25th June, 2006 for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- which was presented, dishonoured and not provided for in spite of service of notice of demand. The accused came up with the defence that the transaction was of the year 2003 and the cheque was issued in the year 2003, and that, the date on the cheque was altered to 25th June, 2006 subsequently. The respondent had, in fact, applied for the cheque being sent to the hand writing expert, which prayer was rejected by the Trial Court. The Complainant had stated that an agreement in respect of the flat was executed in the year 2003. He further stated that both he & accused went to the Bank and the Complainant requested the accused to issue fresh cheque to 3 Appln 540-2010 which the accused corrected the date on the cheque on the ground that the accused did not have any fresh cheque. The import of the statement is clear that the cheque in question was, in fact, issued in the year 2003. Therefore, the inference drawn by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be perverse or improbable, particularly, in the face of the fact that the Complainant was clearly avoiding to state that the transaction was of the year 2003. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)