1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No.1332 of 2009 with Cri.Applcation No.1331 of 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Heard. 2. The delay is condoned for the reasons given in the application. 3. This is an application for Special Leave to Appeal U/s 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. 4. The applicant is original complainant. He had filed a private complaint case (SCC No. 2793/2006) for offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondent. The applicant alleged that on 15.8.2005, he gave loan of Rs.44,000/- (Rupees forty four thousand) to the Respondent for a period of three (3) months. The Respondent avoided repayment, yet, eventually issued cheque dated 7.2.2006 in his favour towards discharge of the legal debt. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason that signature of the Respondent differed. So, notice of demand was served on the Respondent which was not complied with. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that as on the date of issuance of cheque, as per the entries in the Muster role, it is duly proved that the Respondent was not present at Nanded but was on duty at Aurangabad and, therefore, probably the cheque was not issued on the given date. Secondly, the learned Judicial Magistrate noticed that the applicant admitted the fact that he did not pay any income-tax. He did not explain as to how he had raised an amount of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand) for lending the same. According to the applicant, he was below the required income group and, therefore, was not paying the income-tax. The version of Syed Amin indicated that the applicant was doing business of Bhishi and had induced the Respondent to join the monthly Bhishi. It has come on record that towards subscription of the Bhishi, a blank cheque was given by the Respondent without signing or writing anything thereon. Under these circumstances, the leaned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the applicant failed to prove that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of any legal liability. The impugned judgment does not appear to be improper inasmuch as adequate reasons have been ascribed in support of the order of acquittal. Hence, leave is refused. Appeal dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.14.10.2009. asp/office/Crapp1332.09