* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 103 OF 2009 W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 104 OF 2009 (FOR BAIL) IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 103 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 104 OF 2009 W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2009 (FOR BAIL) IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.104 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2009 W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2009 (FOR BAIL) IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.105 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2009 W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 107 OF 2009 (FOR BAIL) IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2009 Harshad Champaklal Shah ....Applicants V/S. 1. Ramesh Jethwa 2. State of Maharashtra ....Respondents * 2 * ======= Mr.Ramprakash Pandey, adv.for applicant. Mr.Kishore Bhatia,adv.for respondent no.1. Mr.P.A.Pol, APP for State of Maharashtra-respondent no.2. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 4TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. This is a common order on the four Revision Applications which are preferred to challenge the correctness and legality of the orders of the trial court and the appellate court convicting the applicant of the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. It was the case of respondent no.1 that he had given friendly loan to the applicant and in discharge of that loan, the cheques in dispute were given by the applicant to respondent no.1. The defence taken by the applicant before the trial court was that he had issued the cheques to respondent no.1 in order to facilitate respondent no.1 to show his financial position before the visa authorities as the son of respondent no.1 was to go abroad. The applicant had relied upon a receipt to show that he had given the cheques to respondent no.1. During the course of the trial, the applicant had produced the zerox copies of the receipt. He had produced the original only after his * 3 * statement was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Even then, the court had forwarded the receipt to the hand writing expert. The opinion of the hand writing expert received does not support the applicant. 4. I have carefully gone through the judgments of both the courts below. I am of the opinion that the view taken by the courts is a possible view of the matter. The same does not require any interference by invoking the powers of revision. Hence, the above Revision Applications are dismissed, in limine. 5. The order of bail is extended for a period of 8 weeks from today. With these, the Bail Applications stand disposed off. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]