1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.258/2006 Murlidhar s/o Ramchandra Gojare, Age : 40 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Gopiwadi, Post. Wadwali, T. Paithan, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Applicant. Versus 1 Chandmal s/o Hastimal Mutha, Age : 45 years, Occu. Business, R/o Market Yard, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, P.S. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents. Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.S. Sayyed, Advocate h/f Mr. P.S. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.P.P. for respondent No.2 / State. WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.259/2006 Murlidhar s/o Ramchandra Gojare, Age : 40 years, occu. Agriculture, R/o Gopiwadi, Post. Wadwali, Tq.Paithan Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Applicant. Versus 1 Chandmal s/o Hastimal Mutha, Age : 45 years, Occu. Business, R/o Market Yard, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. 2 Ahmednagar. 2 The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, P.S. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 14th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 Heard. 2 Both these revision applications can be decided by this common judgment because the facts and the parties are same. These revision are filed against concurrent findings of Courts below that the applicant had committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3 The trial Court has sentenced the applicant to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in each case. The applicant’s appeals were dismissed. 4 The facts alleged against the applicant are as under. The applicant was working as driver with the respondent / complainant prior to year 2000. Some time before that, the applicant sought hand loan of Rs.30,000/- which the respondent / complainant advanced to him. Till the year 2000, the amount was not repaid and the applicant left the complainant’s job and took up service elsewhere. The complainant therefore, went to the applicant and demanded the dues. In order to pay the amount due, the applicant issued the cheques in question of Rs.15,000/- each. The cheque failed. 3 5 The applicant took up multiple defences. On one hand he said that he had not taken any loan from the complainant and so the complainant should have proved the factum of handing over of the loan through the documentary evidence. He said, in absence of such documentary evidence, the case of the complainant should be totally discarded. Second, the applicant suggested that while he was still in service of the complainant, he obtained blank but signed cheques from him and thereafter, utilised the same to raise this dispute. The third line of defence is that the applicant had given his cheque book to the complainant and the complainant forged the cheques in question to raise this dispute and to prosecute him. The judges of the lower Court rejected all the defences. They believed the case of the complainant. There is virtually nothing on record to support the defences raised by the applicant. The case of the complainant appears plausible and it appears, the applicant is avoiding to effect the payment. The Courts below recording cogent reasons and accepted the case of the respondent / complainant and I do not think it deserves any interference. ORDER a) Both the revision applications stand dismissed. b) Issue arrest warrant against the applicant. c) The amount deposited by the applicant in this court in both these cases shall be paid to 4 the respondent / complainant and shall be adjusted towards the compensation awarded. d) The applicant is also entitled to set off for the period which has already undergone. e) Substantive sentences in both the cases should run concurrently. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) ts k/ok