1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1121 OF 2008 srk Dhananjay Balkrishna Kulkarni ... Applicant Vs. Vinayak Mahadev Gosavi & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V.Newton, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE :- 21 ST JUNE, 2010. P.C. : 1 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. 2. The Applicant is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2007 passed by the 13 th Judicial Magistrate First Class, 13th Court, Pune, who was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant. Cheque issued by the accused in favour of the Applicant was dishonoured and therefore, the complaint was filed. The accused produced the receipt issued by the Applicant, in which he had mentioned that he had received the said amount of Rs.80,000/- and on the basis of the said receipt, the trial Court acquitted the accused. 2 3 Shri N.P. Deshpande, learned counsel for the Applicant strenuously urged that the said receipt was given only in order to enable the accused to obtain a bank loan. He submitted that complainant and accused had entered into Memorandum of Understanding in which this fact was recorded. 4 I have perused the said Memorandum of Understanding. Reference is made in the said Memorandum of Understanding about the issuance of receipt for the purpose of enabling the accused to obtain loan from the bank. However, admitted position is that, this Memorandum of Understanding was not brought on record by the complainant. The complainant therefore, cannot rely on this document. The trial court therefore was justified in relying on the receipt produced by the accused. No case is therefore made out for interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. 5 Application is accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)