- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1221/2009 Namdeo Bhanudas Changule. ...Applicant.. (Org.complainant) Versus Sayyad Feroz Sayyad Mehboob & another. ...Respondents... ..... Shri Joydeep Chatterjee , Advocate for applicant. Shri S.E. Siddiqui, Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent no.2. ..... CORAM: SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE: 16.07.2010 PER COURT: - 2 - 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] This is an application preferred by the applicant (original complainant) seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6.2.2009 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna, in S.C.C.No. 315/2006 acquitting the respondent no.1 (original accused) for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3] I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 6.2.2009 and record & proceedings with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 4] In short, it is the case of the applicant – original complainant that the complainant advanced hand-loan of Rs.65,000/- to the accused for construction of house on 6.2.2002 and the accused executed an agreement therefor and agreed to repay the said loan within a period of two years. It is alleged that the accused issued a cheque of Rs.65,000/- on 10.2.2005 bearing Cheque No.20415 dated 11.8.2005 towards repayment of the said hand-loan. The said cheque was presented for encashment on 6.12.2005, but it was dishonoured and returned unpaid with the endorsement “insufficient funds” on 9.1.2006. Hence, the complainant issued statutory notice to the accused on 17.1.2006 and the same was received by the accused on 21.1.2006, but accused neither replied to the same nor complied with the requirements. Hence, the complainant filed the - 3 - complaint against the accused on 16.2.2006. The complainant examined himself and adduced the evidence as well as produced documentary evidence. Whereas neither the accused examined himself nor examined any other witness in his defence. Considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge arrived at the conclusion that the accused was not guilty and hence acquitted him by judgment and order dated 6.2.2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of acquittal, the applicant has preferred the present application seeking leave to file appeal. 5] Apparently, the alleged hand-loan was given by the complainant to the accused on 6.2.2002 and the cheque in question was issued by the accused to the complainant on 10.2.2005 bearing date 11.8.2005 and hence it is amply clear that the said cheque was issued by the accused to the complainant after the period of three years i.e. after the expiry of period of limitation, and hence, the learned trial Judge rightly observed in the impugned judgment that the said cheque was issued by the accused to the complainant for time barred debt and rightly concluded that no offence has been committed by the accused and rightly acquitted the accused by judgment and order dated 6.2.2009. 6] In the circumstances, the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge for arriving at the conclusion that the accused is not guilty appears to be proper and the same can not be faulted with and it does not appear to be perverse. More over, the view adopted by the learned trial Judge is a possible to be adopted after - 4 - scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence and, therefore, no interference therein is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction. 7] In the result, present application, being sans merits, stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal stands refused. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) ndk/cr1671010