1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1370 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.282 OF 2008 Baban s/o Maruti Suryawanshi Applicant Versus Ajit s/o Manohar Dhaware Respondent with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1354 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.280 OF 2008 Baban s/o Maruti Suryawanshi Applicant Versus Ajit s/o Manohar Dhaware Respondent Mr.S.T.Ghute, advocate for the applicant/s. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 30th June, 2009. P.C.: 1 These are applications seeking leave to file appeals against the order of acquittal recorded in Summary Criminal Case Nos.1431/2005 and 1430/2005. 2 2 It is the contention of complainant – applicant herein that an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- was given to Respondent as he was in need of the amount. The amount was given for meeting household expenses. It is the contention of complainant that the amount was secured by him for the purposes of development of his agricultural land. However, as the accused was in need of money, same was handed over to him on 23.02.2005. The accused, in order to repay the loan amount, issued two cheques for an amount of Rs.65,000/- each. However, on presentation of said cheques to the bank, same were dishonoured. Complainant thereafter issued notice to the accused by Registered Post A.D. on 13.08.2005, which was received by the accused on 16.08.2005. However, accused did not repay the amount in spite of receipt of notice. As such, complainant was constrained to file criminal cases under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3 The trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties, recorded a finding that the complainant has failed to establish his case and as such, directed acquittal of the accused. The trial Court recorded a finding that the complainant has failed to establish source of amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. There is nothing on record to substantiate contention of the complainant that such huge amount was given to the accused. It is stated by the complainant, in his deposition, that the amount was kept aside by him for the purposes of development of his agricultural land. However, he has stated in his deposition before the Court that he has no agricultural land and whatever land the family possessed, has been alienated by his father long back. The version put up by the complainant, in the complaint, therefore, is not trustworthy. The trial Court was, 3 therefore, justified in recording a finding that the complainant has failed to establish that he lent an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the accused towards legally enforceable dues. The view adopted by the trial Court appears to be reasonable and based on appreciation of evidence placed on record by the complainant. There is no error committed by the trial Court in appreciation of evidence. There is no substance in the applications, seeking leave to file appeals. 4 Both the applications, seeking leave to file respective appeals against the order of acquittal, therefore, stand rejected. Consequently, appeals also fail and stand rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/criappln137008