1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1348 of 2008 Madanmohan Kundanlal Chandak..vs.. Kamal K. Gandhi and another. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri B. N. Mohta, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. T. D. Khade, APP for respondent No.2. CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 18th June, 2008 1. The applicant's complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed. 2. The case of the applicant/complainant proceeded on following admitted facts :- (i) The complainant claims that cheque was issued towards repayment of hand loan for business purpose on which interest was agreed, but was not paid. (ii) The dishonour of cheque is on account of insufficient funds. (iii) The complainant has not examined himself nor assigned any reasons. (iv) The complainant through Power of Attorney Holder, who is a Chartered Accountant, has deposed in support of his complaint. (v) Though the applicant contends that he has maintained accounts, states that account books for the relevant period are destroyed, he has produced computerised statement of accounts. 2 (vi) No other evidence is produced to prove that the loan was advanced. (3) Learned trial Court has disbelieved the complainant's version and found that the computerised statement of accounts can be generated and its liability was not proved. (4) It is narrated in the complaint that the accounts of complainant has witnessed all transactions. (5) Complainant's witness No.1 has deposed that he does not know who has written the cheque. (6) The defense of the accused was found to be consistent that the blank cheques were given towards security in the year 1995 and that fact of given loan in the year 1995 is admitted by complainant's witness namely Omprakash. (7) The findings recorded by the trial Court are challenged, contending that the trial Court was wrong in relying upon the version of the defense and that the mere assertion by the accused was not sufficient. (8) The grounds to challenge this order are seen to be based on totally unilateral perspective of the matter. In fact, the applicant has ignored that : (a) he has failed to prove existing civil liability and the very fact of advancement of loan, and (b) he has failed to prove that the cheque subject was issued to repay the alleged loan. (9) The judgment impugned is well reasoned. Applicant has not shown in any way that the material on record is not considered. (10) The conclusion drawn by the trial Court are not shown to be perverse or otherwise recorded by ignoring the evidence on record. (11) There are limitations in appeal against the acquittal for re- appreciation of evidence. 3 (12) No interference is called for. The application has no merit and is dismissed. JUDGE andurkar.