IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2142 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2143 OF 2009 Shri Vinod Ratilal Shah .. Applicant V/s. Ms.Jyoti Alok Tiwari & Anr., .. Respondents. Shri Vinod R. Shah, Party in person present. Smt. Pravina J. Kanani, for Respondent No.1 Shri U. V. Nikam, APP for State. Coram: A. R. JOSHI, J. Dated: 15th JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard applicant present in person, in both the matters and also heard learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 in both the matters. Both these matters are leave petitions preferred by the same applicant-in-person to prefer separate appeals against respective Respondents. The said Respondents  Original Accused were convicted by Trial Magistrate for the offences punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. In first matter, the dishonoured cheque is for Rs. 7,32,000.00 and in another matter, cheque is of Rs.1,75,000. It is admitted position that signature on the cheques is not denied by the Resondent. However, it is said that they were given as and by way of security. It appears that the said cheques were given by respective Respondents alongwith covering letters and which were produced during the Trial, before Metropolitan Magistrate Court. 3. It also appears that the Trial Magistrate was influenced by the plea taken on behalf of the Respondents, that the complainant had no money lending licence, though engaged in said money lending business. Some admissions given by the complainant during his cross examination, were taken shelter of by the Trial Magistrate. However, at one instance, at para no. 17 of the Impugned Judgment, in first matter, it is mentioned that said complainant is not in money lending business. Similar observation was made by Trial Magistrate in the another Judgment also. 4. In the opinion of this Court, considering the evidence produced before the Trial Court, there is still scope in appeal to ascertain whether there was really a money lending business of the Applicant and still if it is accepted, then whether there would be any liability for Respondent to pay the amount on a bounced cheques. 5. All the same, in view of the above, there is a Trial issue to be decided in both the matters and as such, both the leave petitions are accordingly allowed and disposed off. 6. Appeal to be admitted. 7. Call for record and proceedings in both the matters. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)