1 APPLN-1098.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1098 OF 2010 Mukesh Ganpatrao Sarnobat .... Applicant Vs. Rajsinha V. Shinde & Anr. .... Respondents Ms M.M. Deshmukh i/b Shri Milind Deshmukh for the Applicant. Shri Chetan G. Patil for Respondent No.1. Shri Rajesh More, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: AUGUST 09, 2011 P.C: This is an application for leave to file appeal against the Judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused had taken a defence that the complainant had taken some blank cheques and blank stamp-papers from the accused. Now after taking this defence the accused could not have said that the cheque and the Agreement do not bear his signatures. But curiously he took that defence. The learned Magistrate rightly held that since the cheque 2 APPLN-1098.10 was not returned by the Bank dishonoured because the signature did not tally, the accused could not deny his signature on the cheque. Thus, the learned Magistrate should have realised that he was dealing with a person who had no compunction in even going to the extent of denying his signature on the cheque. In this context, whether the complainant produced his books of account or the income-tax statement should not have been material. Also after holding that it is not necessary to mention everything in the notice, the learned Magistrate seems to have been influenced by the fact that the notice was inadequate as to the details about the transactions. In view of this, it cannot be said that the defence was probabilised. Leave granted. Appeal admitted. Call for the R & P.. Since the learned counsel for the respondent states that he would be representing the respondent, action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)