1 appln 6413 of 2005 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6413 OF 2005 Paresh Dahiwal .. Applicant Versus M/s Harishchandra Farming Project Pvt. Ltd and ors ..Respondents Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, for the applicant. Mrs. P. P. Bosale, APP for the Respondent State. Mr. Prashant Beri a/w Mr. Kaustubh i/b M/s Beri & Co. for Respondent NO.1. CORAM: R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : 13th July, 2011. P.C.: 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal by rendered by the learned J.M. F.C. Pune, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Respondent No.1 is a company of which respondent Nos 2 to 5 were alleged to be the Directors. But there is no evidence to show that they were the Directors of the company. Respondent No.1 company induced the applicant to invest amount in co-operative farming and therefore, the applicant invested some amounts. Agreement of lease was executed by a farmer in favour of the applicant. 2 appln 6413 of 2005 The farmer seems to have executed similar agreements with several other persons brought by the company. The company was to pay to the applicant various sums from the fourth year onwards toward the income from agriculture. The cheques for the first two years were cleared. The cheque for the income from the third year of Rs 35,000/- was issued by the original accused No.2 Harichandra Agarwal. This cheque bounced and after issuing notice, complaint was filed. 2. The learned Magistrate cannot be faulted for taking view that even according to complainant the liability to pay Rs.35,000/- was of the accused No.1 company. The company had not issued cheque. There is nothing to show that Harishcanndra Agarwal, assumed the responsibility of paying moneys on behalf of the company. Therefore, the presumption on which the learned counsel for the applicant relies is rebutted by the very complaint itself. As far as company is concerned, company has not issued any cheque. Therefore, the complainant was rightly disbelieved by the learned Magistrate and no fault can be found with the judgment of acquittal. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)