1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 558 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 (Vivek Shankarrao Mamidwar .v. Naresh Modak) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri V.N. Patre, Advocate for the applicant. Shri V. Dharkar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 05TH OCTOBER, 2010. Heard. Learned Counsel for the applicant by inviting my attention to paras 9 and 11 of the judgment of the learned lower Court, submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the facts in their proper perspective. He further submits that there was a difference in the figure and words on the cheque (Exh.62). He further submits that the fact was also accepted by the bank official. Learned Counsel for the applicant further invites my attention to Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He further submits that in view of the factual position, his case is covered by the judgment of the Karnataka High in the case of N. Hasainar .v. M. Hasainar (reported in 2009(2) Banker’s Journal, 295). Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent places reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Babulal Nainmal Jain .v. Khimji Ratanshi Dedhia and others (reported in 1998 Cri.L.J., 4750) and Abdul Rehman M. Mulgand .v. Mohammad Hashan Mulgand and another (reported in AIR 2006 (NOC) 370 (BOM) : 2006 (1) AIR Bom R 123). It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that it is only structural defect. In my opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that it is only the structural defect is not helpful 2 for the reason that while discussing the structural defect, this Court in the case of Babulal Nainmal Jain .v. Khimji Ratanshi Dedhia and others (cited supra) has observed that, “if a cheque is returned on account of any structural defect i.e. any defect in its form, want of signature, date has not been properly written, figure of the amount has been overwritten or erasures in the drawer’s name etc.” The same will not amount an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of Section 18 of the said Act, the difference in figure and words cannot be stated as structural defect. In view of the above, prima case is made out for leave to file an appeal. Criminal Application for leave to appeal is allowed. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010. Heard Shri V.N. Patre, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri V. Dharaskar, the learned Counsel for the respondent. Admit. Call for and R and P. Action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be followed. JUDGE *rrg.