( 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.885 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.885 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.885 OF 2007 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 APPEAL NO. OF 2007 APPEAL NO. OF 2007 Mrs.Jenisha Mehta .. Applicant (Appellant) V/s M/s.JIK Industries Ltd.& Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Gautam Yadav for the Applicant. Ms.M.V.Thakkar with Mr.R.V.Thakkar for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.A.T.Javeri, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : CORAM : CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. This is an application for grant of special leave under sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Applicant filed the complaint alleging commission of an offence u/s.138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has acquitted the 1st and 2nd Respondents (1st and 2nd accused). 2. The case made out by the complainant is that the 1st Respondent is a limited Company and the 2nd Respondent is its Chairman and Managing Director. The case of the Applicant is that she had advanced a sum of Rs.3 lakhs ( 2 ) by cheque to the 1st Respondent Company as intercorporate deposit for a period of 90 days. Two cheques were issued by the 1st Respondent favouring the Applicant. The first cheque was bearing No.247333 dated 23.06.2004 in the sum of Rs.3 lakhs. Other cheque was bearing No.247340 dated 23.06.2004 in the sum of Rs.15978.42. The first cheque represented the principal amount and the second cheque represented the interest. The cheques were returned dis-honoured on the ground that the payment was stopped. After serving the demand notice, the complaint was filed. 3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the 1st and 2nd Respondents and an appeal was preferred by the 1st and 2nd Respondents before the Sessions Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The defence of the 1st Respondent was that the 1st Respondent Company was dealing with Apnaghar Housing Development & Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as M/s Apnaghar) and the said Company never dealt with the Applicant. It is the case of the 1st Respondent that said M/s.Apnaghar had arranged for Intercorporate deposits of Rs.48 lakhs for the benefit of the 1st Respondent. Six cheques were issued by the 1st Respondent by way of collateral security and the said cheques were post-dated cheques which were handed over to M/s.Apnghar. The case of the 1st Respondent is ( 3 ) that the said Company dealt with M/s.Apnaghar through Mr.N.R.Agarwal. The case is that as per the instructions of said Mr.N.R.Agarwal of M/s.Apnaghar the cheques were drawn in the name of the Applicant. Further the case made out by the 1st Respondent is that in May-2004 the 1st Respondent became aware that M/s.Apnaghar were selling the shares of the 1st Respondent, and therefore, the cheque payments were stopped. It is the case of the 1st Respondent that M/s.Apnaghar returned five post-dated cheques, and other cheques were retained on the ground that the 1st Respondent had not paid interest of Rs.235000/- 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has taken me through the complaint, notes of evidence and other documents on record. He submitted that the 1st Respondent is unnecessorily mixing other transactions of the 1st Respondent with M/s.Apnaghar. He stated that the Intercorporate Deposit was provided by the Applicant to the 1st Respondent and the cheques were issued in discharge of the said liability. He invited my attention to the deposition of the Applicant. He submitted that it is not the case of the 1st Respondent that the amount was repaid to the Applicant. He submitted that the impugned judgment and order is perverse and therefore interference is called for. He invited my attention to the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge while convicting the 1st and 2nd ( 4 ) Respondents. He pointed out that by recording cogent reasons, the defence of the 1st and 2nd Respondents was rightly discarded by the learned trial Court. He submitted that there was no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere. 5. The learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents has produced the compilation containing notes of evidence and the documents on record of the trial Court. Inviting my attention to the said documents, she submitted that the defence of the 1st and 2nd Respondents has been rightly upheld by the Appellate Court. 6. I have perused the evidence and the other documents on record as well as the impugned judgment and order. In the cross-examination, the Applicant admitted that she was an employee of M/s.N.R.Agarwal and Company. She admitted that she was a Director of M/s.Apnaghar Housing Development Finance Limited since 1st April, 2003. She stated that the 2nd Respondent had met her in connection with the transaction. She admitted that 1st Respondent had transactions with M/s.Apnaghar of the similar nature. In the cross-examination her attention was invited to the correspondence made by the 1st Respondent with M/s.Apnaghar which was produced by the 1st Respondent. ( 5 ) 7. It must be stated here that the 2nd Respondent, in paragraph No.1 of his deposition has deposed as under:- "I am Chairman of the company accused No.1. I know about Apna Ghar Housing Development Finance Company through one Mr.N.R.Agarwal. They were having intercorporate deposit with Accused No.1. M/s.Apna Ghar arranged deposit of Rs.48 lakhs. We had offered 9 Lakh 50 Thousand of Accused No.1 towards security. We also provided 6 cheques as a collateral security. Those were post-dated cheques. We have arranged cheque of Rs.10 lakh bearing No.390707 dtd.14.6.2004 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce in favour of M/s.Apna Ghar. Similarly, I arranged cheque of Rs.7 lakh drawn on Catholic Syrian bank dtd.23rd June, 2004 bearing No.247334 and also cheque No.453682 for Rs.13 lakhs dtd.1st June, 2004 drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank, also cheque No.453630 dtd.1st June, 2004 for Rs.10 lakhs drawn on Oriental bank of Commerce, Cheque No.890708 dtd.13th June, 2004 for Rs.5 lakh drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce in favour of one Jenisha Mehta & Cheque No.247333 dtd.23rd June, 2004 for Rs.3 lakh drawn on Catholic Syrian bank in favour of Jenisha Mehta." 8. He further stated that five cheques issued by the 1st Respondent were returned by M/s.Apnaghar and the said cheques were produced on record of the complaint. ( 6 ) He stated that by a letter dated 19th July, 2004 (Exhibit D9) he had called upon M/s.Apnaghar to return the cheque dated 23.06.2004 bearing No.247333 in the sum of Rs.3 lakhs drawn favouring the Applicant. He produced a reply to the said letter issued by M/s.Apnaghar in the evidence. The witness was cross-examined by the Advocate for the Applicant. In the cross-examination the witness was confronted by showing Exhibit D (letter addressed to the 2nd Respondent by M/s.Apnaghar). The witness was also shown letters at Exhibit D-10 and D-11 in the cross-examination. 9. It will be necessary to refer to the said letters produced on record by the 1st Respondent. Exhibit D-2 is the letter dated 15th March, 2004 addressed by the 1st Respondent to the Applicant acknowledging renewal of the deposit of Rs.5 lakhs for 90 days. 1st Respondent forwarded the stamped receipt and the post-dated cheque in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs, and requested the Applicant to return earlier post-dated cheques. The post-dated cheque forwarded alongwith the said letter is bearing No.890708 which according to the case of the 1st and 2nd Respondent was returned to them by M/s.Apnaghar. The said cheque has been produced on record at Exhibit D-3. This was the cheque drawn by the 1st Respondent in favour of the Applicant. ( 7 ) 10. Exhibit D-4 is a letter dated 15th July, 2004 addressed by M/s.Apnaghar to the 2nd Respondent, in which, it is stated that the loan of Rs.48 lakhs was provided by M/s.Apnaghar to the 1st Respondent, and as on 1st April, 2001 a sum of Rs.2,25,635/- was the balance amount payable by the 1st Respondent. Alongwith the said letter, M/s.Apnaghar returned five cheques to the 1st Respondent including the cheque in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs drawn by the 1st Respondent favouring the Applicant. In the said letter M/s.Apnaghar stated that the cheque in the sum of Rs.3 lakhs was retained by them, as the 1st Respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,635/- on account of interest. 11. It will be necessary to refer to the letter dated 19th July, 2004 (Exhibit D-9) sent by the 1st Respondent to M/s.Apnaghar by which a specific request was made to M/s.Apnaghar for returning the Cheque No.247333 dated 23rd June, 2004 in the sum of Rs.3 lakhs, which cheque is the subject matter of the complaint. In the letter dated 23rd July, 2004 (Exhibit D-10) sent by M/s.Apnaghar to the 2nd Respondent, it is stated that unless interest amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was paid, M/s.Apnaghar will have to deposit the said cheque in the sum of Rs.3 lakhs. Reliance has been placed on the letter dated 3rd May, 2005 (Exhibit D-11) sent by the 1st Respondent to Mr.N.R.Agarwal requesting him to return the cheque in the sum of Rs.3 lakhs. ( 8 ) 12. In the letter dated 20th May, 2005 sent by M/s.Apnaghar to the 1st Respondent (Exhibit D-12), it is stated that against amount of Rs.3 lakhs advanced by the Applicant only a sum of Rs.1428/- was balance. 13. As pointed out earlier, the Applicant admaitted that from April 2003 she was a Director of M/s.Apnaghar. There is an evidence brought on record by 1st Respondent that cheque in dispute of Rs.3 lakhs was in the custody of M/s.Apnaghar and not the Applicant. The letter at Exhibit D12 shows that M/s Apnaghar collected certain amounts from third parties including the Applicant and paid the same to the 1st Respondent as intercorporate deposit. In the circumstances, it appears to me that the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge that the guilt of the 1st and 2nd Respondents is not established is certainly a possible view. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and has recorded detailed findings. Even assuming that another view can be taken on the same evidence, it is not permissible to interfere in an appeal against acquittal. No case is made out for grant of leave. Application is rejected. 14. It is further made clear that the observations made in this order are only for limited purpose of examining the prayer for grant of leave, and nothing stated in ( 9 ) this order shall be construed as any adjudication made by this Court on the rights and liabilities of the parties. (A.S.OKA, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)