1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No.1334 of 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Heard. 2. The appellant is seeking leave to appeal. The Respondent had issued a cheque dated 15.4.2002, for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac). The case of the appellant was that he had lent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) for which the cheque was issued. Admittedly, the cheque was dishonoured. The appellant issued a demand notice dated 13.1.2003, which drew blank, notwithstanding it was duly served on the Respondent. The defence of the Respondent was that he had never transacted with the appellant but his brother was having dealings and for repayment of such amounts, five (5) blank cheques were obtained from him. He asserted that the appellant was making use of the blank cheques for extracting easy money. The Respondent did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence. Still, however, it has come on the record that the appellant gave inconsistent version as regards availability of funds with him. At one place he stated that he had sold his jeep vehicle and the amount of sale proceeds was available with him from which he gave the hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) to the Respondent. At another place, he stated that he had obtained loan from a Credit Society (Pathpedi). He stated further that he will be able to produce documentary evidence regarding such loan borrowed from the Credit Society but did not file any such document. Another important thing which came in the way of the appellant is that he narrated that previously he had lent amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand) to the Respondent. That amount was allegedly due from the Respondent when the subsequent loan amount was given. It is but natural that when such huge amount was due about the so-called first transaction, ordinarily, the second loan amount would not have been given and that too after borrowing such amount from the Cooperative Credit Society. The version of the appellant was, therefore, found unconvincing and unacceptable. The impugned judgment of acquittal does not suffer from any serious infirmity. Hence, leave is refused. The appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.14.09.2009. asp/office/Crapp1334.09