1 Cri-A-4958-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4958 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Chhaya Corner Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadeet. .. Applicant (Orig. complainat) Vs. Shri Bapuso Sangappa Magdum & Anr. .. Respondents (No. 1 orig. accused) Mr. P.D.Dalvi,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. D.V.Sutar, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. V.B.Konde Deshmukh, APP, for the respondent NO.2 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 16th March, 2011. P.C. 1. The applicant, who is original complainant, seeks leave to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal. According to the complainant, the accused/respondent had taken loan of Rs.3 lakh on 12.3.2004. On 13.3.2007, the accused issued a cheque in favour of the complainant for payment of Rs. 4,44,000/-. After perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused holding that on 13.3.2007, when the disputed cheque was issued, the amount due was less than Rs.4,44,000/- and therefore, it could not be said that the cheque was issued in discharge of the debt or liability which was 2 Cri-A-4958-09.sxw legally enforceable on that day. 2. The learned trial Court in para 21 of the Judgment noted that as per the statement prepared by the complainant-Bank, on 1.2.2007, amount of Rs. 4,14,775/- was due. After addition of interest, on 30.3.2007 the amount due was Rs.4,44,405/-. The trial Court noted in para 22 that as per the documents Exhibits 26 and 59 produced by the complainant Bank, amount of interest from 13.3.2007 to 30.3.2007 i.e. for 19 days was Rs.3,886/-. As such, on 13.3.2007, after deducting interest for 19 days, the amount due could be Rs.4,40,519/-, while the complainant Bank had obtained the cheque on that day for Rs.4,44,000/- which was more than the amount due from him. Though major portion of the amount was due from him, at least some part of the amount included in the cheque was not due from the accused and therefore that was not the debt or liability which could be legally enforced against him on that day. There is nothing before this Court to show that the facts noted by the trial Court in paras 21 and 22 of the judgment are not correct. In view of these facts, it is difficult to hold a different view. 3. It is also settled position of law that even if on re-appreciation of evidence, different view may also be possible, that itself is no ground to interfere 3 Cri-A-4958-09.sxw in the order of acquittal. In view of the facts and the legal position,I do not see any reason to grant leave to prefer Appeal. 4. Therefore, the Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)