1 cri.appln.2567.06 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2567 OF 2006 B.K. Traders ... Applicant Versus Shri. Sai Sadguru Tailoring Material and anr. Respondents Mr. Surel Shah for the applicant. Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : FEBRUARY 17, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 20th March, 2006 passed by the trial court in Summary trial case No. 6522 of 2003 filed by the applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. By the said judgment and order, the respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The applicant is a proprietor of M/s. B.K. Traders and as such carries on business of selling tailoring materials. According to him, the respondent had purchased tailoring material from him wroth Rs. 2 cri.appln.2567.06 24,000/­ on 26th October, 2010, 27th October, 2010 and 2nd November, 2002 vide bills Nos. 514, 515 and 527 on credit. On 10th November, 2002 the respondent issued cheque in the sum of Rs. 12271.50 towards the price of the tailoring material. The cheque when presented for payment dishonoured with remark "cash credit/overdraft condition not fulfilled". Thereafter statutory notice came to be served upon the respondents. Then the complaint had been filed. Before the trial court it was contended by the respondent that the cheque was a blank cheque given to the applicant and the cheque was not issued towards any specific bill for purchase of the material. It was given as security. According to the applicant the price of tailoring material was not made strictly as per the bills. However, the trial court has found that the bills at Exh. 32, to 34 and 49 to 51 show that the cheques had been obtained on every bill for the bill amount. There was no bill signed by the applicant in respect of the cheque amount. 3. The trial court also found that the contention of the respondent that the cheque given was a blank cheque was substantiated by the cross examination of the applicant himself. The applicant admitted in his cross examination that the date and amount mentioned on the 3 cri.appln.2567.06 cheque was in the handwriting of his brother. As regards the bill for the amount of the cheque relied upon by the applicant, it was specific evidence of the respondent that the bill was signed not by the applicant but by his son Sudhakar. The trial Court accepted the evidence and acquitted the respondent holding that there was no bill issued by the applicant for any purchase of tailoring material towards the price of which cheque was alleged to have been given. The view taken by the trial court is a plausible view. Hence, the application is dismissed. [Judge]