1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2578 OF 2008. Sharvari Financial Services 200, Navi Peth, Jalgaon through it's Proprietor Ashwin S/o Suresh Lalwani. ...Applicant. Versus Prabhakar S/o Gangadhar Patil ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the Applicant. Mr.V.B.Patil, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 21.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The application is filed by original complainant for leave to appeal against the order rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate20 2 (F.C.), Jalgaon, in Summary Cri.Case No.5591/2003 for offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Respondent came to be acquitted for the reason that the contention of the petitioner regarding lending of hand loan of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees one lac ten thousand) to the Respondent was not proved. The trial Court held that there was no reliable evidence regarding existing liability to repay any debt and the cheque was not proved to have been issued in order to discharge any financial liability. 3. What transpires from the impugned judgment is that the petitioner was unable to explain as to why for the amount was needed by the Respondent at the relevant time. It also was revealed that the Respondent produced a receipt (Exh.33) regarding payment of price for raw cotton which was allegedly procured from the petitioner. The defence of the Respondent was that an unwritten partnership business was started by the petitioner and himself so as to procure raw cotton from the cotton growers in the rural area and to sell it in the name of the 3 petitioner. He asserted that he had issued five (5) blank cheques to the petitioner by way of security in view of the unwritten partnership business. The petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that he is a cotton grower. He admitted that he has no knowledge whether the Respondent was known by nick name as "Wasu". The version of the petitioner revealed of close friendship and, therefore, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the undercurrent of the transactions were quite different from what the petitioner claimed. There appears no perversity committed by the learned Magistrate while appreciating the evidence on record. The impugned acquittal is, therefore, not prima facie, demonstrated to be perverse and as such leave to appeal is refused. The application is, therefore, dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp257808