..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1057 of 2008 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 Shri.Sharad Shantaram Bhoir. ..Applicant. Versus Shri Santosh Ramu Pathare and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.K.K.Malpathak, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 4th February, 2008 passed by the learned 3rd Jt.J.M.F.C., Bhivandi in S.C.C.2312/2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent-orig. accused of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant-Orig.complainant. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the ..(2).. evidence which has been annexed. 3. The case of the complainant is that two cheques were given by the respondent-accused to him. One cheque was for the amount of Rs.60,000/- which was issued towards legal liability relating to repairs of lorry and the second cheque was for the amount of Rs.1,12,000/- issued in respect of legal liability arising out of rent. As the said two cheques bounced, the complainant after following due procedure filed complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 4. As far as cheque Exh.51 for the amount of Rs.60,000/- is concerned, it is the case of the complainant that the said cheque was given towards repairs of lorry by the accused. The date of the cheque is 1.6.2005. Exh.67 which is an agreement is relied upon to show that the accused had to pay for the sundry repair expenses of the lorry. The complainant and the accused each had to bear half of the cost of repairs i.e. the repair costs would be borne by both the parties equally. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen that the ..(3).. complainant has not given the particulars of the said repair costs of lorry. The complainant has not given any details whether the said amount is relating to sundry repair expenses. The complainant has not produced any particulars relating to the costs of the repairs of the said lorry. Not a single bill relating to repairs of the lorry has been produced. In such case, it is difficult to accept that the complainant has incurred Rs.60,000/- towards the repairs of the lorry. Even considering that the amount of Rs.60,000/- was incurred by the complainant towards expenses of sundry repairs of the lorry, it is seen that the accused can be made liable only for the half of costs of repairs as per the agreement Exh.67. In the absence of any evidence regarding the costs of repairs of the lorry, the complainant has failed to prove that the accused would be liable to pay him Rs.60,000/-. 5. In respect of second cheque Exh.48, it is the contention of the complainant that the accused is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,12,000/- towards eight months pending rent of the lorry and ..(4).. the said period is computed from 15.10.2004. The cheque for Rs.1,12,000/- is dated 28.4.2005. If the period is computed from 15.10.2004 till 28.4.2005, the period only comes to six months. In such case, it is difficult to accept that on 28.4.2005 the accused would be liable to pay Rs.1,12,000/- as monthly rent of eight months as the period of eight months would expire on 15.6.2005. Mr.Malpathak the learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the evidence of PW-3 Meena wherein she has stated that she has taken the custody of the said lorry in July, 2005 and thereafter the cheques were deposited. He has submitted that in such case the period would come to eight months and there would liability of Rs.1,12,000/-. 6. As far as this cheque of Rs.1,12,000/- is concerned, the legal liability on the part of the accused to pay Meena arose, as the agreement was between the accused and PW-3 Meena. Hence the accused was liable to pay the said amount to Meena. However, it is seen that the cheque was not issued in the name of PW-3 Meena, but, it has ..(5).. been issued in the name of the complainant. There is no material to show that there was any legally enforceable debt or liability in respect of the present complainant in respect of cheque at Exh.48. In such case, the learned Magistrate has observed that the accused cannot be held liable for the dishonour of the cheque in question and he is entitled to acquittal. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 7. Mr.Malpathak, the learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. I.C.D.S. Ltd. I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer and another v. Beena Shabeer and another v. Beena Shabeer and another reported in 2002 2002 2002 CRI.L.J. 3935 CRI.L.J. 3935 CRI.L.J. 3935. On perusal of the said decision, I am of the opinion that this decision would not apply to the facts of the present case. 8. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. ..(6).. 9. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then mere circumstance that the lower Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)