IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.576 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 Smt.Suvra Gyanesh Sharma )..Applicant Versus Smt.Pushpa J.Sharma & Anr. )..Respondent ---- Mr.M.P.Vashi i/by M.P.Vashi & Associates for the applicant. Mr.Anoop Pandey for respondent no.1. Smt.A.A.Mane APP for the State. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 27.08.2008. PC 1. Heard both sides. Perused the record. The accused has been acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On perusing the judgment and order and the evidence, I find that the acquittal is based upon cogent and believable reasons. The case of the complainant was that a friendly loan was given in the year 2002. As against this, it was the defence that the loan was taken in 1998 and fully repaid in 2001. This is a case where defence has infact examined husband of the complainant. The said husband admitted a chit which was produced by the defence to be a chit in his own hand-writing. There is no signature on this : 2 : chit but once the handwriting was admitted and though the said witness went on to deny the contents, the Court can rely upon the contents which speak for themselves. In my view, once the handwriting of this chit is accepted, then the complainant’s case that loan was taken in the year 2002 will stand falsified as the chit indicates several repayments in the year 2001. Added to this fact that the bank officer was examined by the defence to indicate the fact that the cheque in question was issued in 1998. It is sufficient that doubt is created by the defence about the veracity of the complainant’s case. In this view of the matter, this is not a fit case to interfere in an appeal against acquittal. Hence, leave refused. Consequently, appeal papers to be filed. Application stands disposed off. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)