1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2344 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.2344 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.2344 OF 2007 S.K. Sales ... Applicant through its Proprietor Shri Shital Laxmikant Gandhi Vs. M/s Jay Ambe Industries & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.B. Tidke i/by P.D. Dalvi for Applicant. Mr. D.V. Sutar for respondent No.1 Mrs. Gadkari, APP for State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J : R.S. MOHITE, J : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 17TH JULY, 2008 : 17TH JULY, 2008 : 17TH JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- 1. This is an application for leave to Appeal. 2. By an impugned judgment and order, the respondent No.1 - the accused has been acquitted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was the defence of the accused that he had taken loan from the complainant and repaid the the entire amount and at the time of taking loan, he had given him blank cheques towards security. On behalf of the complainant, the accounts were produced at Exhibit 40 and at the foot of the 2 accounts ending on 31/3/2000, the balance amount of Rs.6,69,890/- was shown. 2. It was the case of the complainant that the cheques were issued for payment of said liability. On perusal of the statement of account, however, I find that the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been repaid and so called liability consists of commission by adding which, the amount ultimately shown at the foot of the statement of account. It is not shown to me as to how such commission was payable. 3. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court has accepted the defence of the accused. It has found that the writings on the cheque were in different ink, which fact supported the defence theory. The blank cheque is found to have been given as a security for grant of loan. In my view, the view taken by the learned lower Court is a possible view. This is not the fit case for interference in an appeal against the acquittal. 4. Leave is refused. Consequently, appeal papers be filed. 3 ( R.S. MOHITE, J.) R.S. MOHITE, J.) R.S. MOHITE, J.)