/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 28 OF 2007 Vadilal Milk Products Pvt.Ltd. ...Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents --- Mr. Piyush Shah for Applicant Mrs. M.H. Mhatre APP for the State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. 2. The Applicant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the Respondent-accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The Applicant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the Respondent after the cheque which was given by him was dishonoured and despite sending the statutory notice, the Respondent-accused had not paid the said amount to him. The Trial Court, however, came to the conclusion that cheque was not given in discharge of his legally enforceable liability. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the Trial Court has erred in recording the said reasons. He / 2 / has invited my attention to the evidence of the Complainant and the finding recorded by the Trial Court. It is well settled position in law that the order of the Trial Court, acquitting the accused can be interfered with, only if it is found that the finding recorded by the Trial Court is perverse or is contrary to the evidence which is on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible view, the High Court can not be expected to interfer with the view taken by the Trial Court. 5. In the present case, during the cross examination of the Complainant, he was not in a position to explain the transaction between the Applicant and the Respondent herein. The accused had come out with the specific case that the Complainant used to demand blank cheques by way of security for the payment of the amount, which was due and payable. The Complainant's witness Satyapal Chouhan had admitted that the settlement of accounts with the distributor was looked after by the Accounts Department. The accused, on the other hand, in his defence has stated that he had demanded return of all the blank cheques, which were given to the Company by letter dated 19.2.2002 and also demanded statement of accounts. The accused examined Ashwin Patel and he produced the terms and conditions of the distributorship dated 2.3.1998. He further stated that he has deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards security deposit. He also produced the / 3 / covering letter, which was given with the blank cheques at Exhibits 17 and 18. The Trial Court has accepted the defence of the accused and, therefore, held that the cheque was not given for discharging the legally enforceable liability. 6. In my view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. The finding recorded by the Trial Court is not perverse. 7. Leave, therefore, is refused. Application is dismissed. Appeal does not survive. V.M.KANADE J.