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 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.152 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.53 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1444 OF 2006 Ramniranjan Kedia Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Intervenor. IN M/s. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. ...Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents. Mr. S.P.Dalvi i/by Mr.P. R. Dave for Intervenor. Mr. Nimesh Desai for the Applicant. Mr. V.K. Sharma i/by Mrs. Kalyani G. Parmar for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. A.S.Shitole, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 29th July,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is an application for intervention of third party who was not party to the 138 proceeding. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the company was amalgamated. However, I find that the amendment to that regard has already been carried out .The other prayers are vague. Hence, application is rejected. (R. S. MOHITE, J.) 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 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1444 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 M/s. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. ...Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Nimesh Desai for the Applicant. Mr. V.K. Sharma i/by Mrs. Kalyani G. Parmar for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. A.S.Shitole, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 29th July,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is an application for leave to file appeal. The accused who were guarantors were acquitted in proceeding U/s.138 of the N.I.Act. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order it appears that the same has been delivered by giving cogent and acceptable reasons. The witness of the complainant had admitted that when the accused were called upon to pay the entire cheque amount i.e. on the date of demand of notice, the liability of the principal borrower was only Rs.78,00,000/-. It is not disputed that the cheque was for Rs.83,00,000/-. In the circumstances, admission of the witness clearly indicates that the cheque amount was in excess of the existing liability of the principal borrower. The accused being the guarantors, their liability would not co-extensive with the liability of the principal borrower. In view of the aforesaid admission, it is clear that the cheque was in excess of the liability. The record also indicates that immediately after demand notice hypothecated trucks were sold and an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- was recovered. Hence, leave refused. Consequently the appeal papers to be filed. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)