1 appln 387 of 2010 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.387 OF 2010 Mulchand Mohanlal Surana .. Appellant. -versus Arjunrao L Bhakare and anr .. Respondents. Mr. N. P. Shimpi, for the Applicant. Mrs. P. P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. Mrs. Anjali Helekar, for respondent No.1. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 30th June, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, reversing the conviction of the respondent recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirur at Ghodnadi for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The cheque which was dishonoured was drawn on 8th September, 2003. The date was subsequently changed to 30.4.2004. Learned counsel for the applicant states that some amount was due from respondent towards refund from sale transaction. Therefore, compromise was recorded on 23rd January, 2004 on a stamp paper which is at 2 appln 387 of 2010 Exhibit 23 in the record of trial Court. This document mentions that the respondent was to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- in two instalments of Rs.5,00,000/- each by cheques of Jijamata Mahila Sahakari Bank Ltd. Shirur Branch. The cheque numbers were, however, left blank. The respondent is alleged to have requested applicant in December, 2009 not to present those cheques and amount was agreed to be paid in 2 instalments. Cheque dishonoured in question is not of Jijabamata Mahila Sahkari Bank Ltd, but of Bank of Maharashtra. It is not clear as to what was the warrant for the respondent to draw this cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- on 8th September, 2003 since compromise dated 23.1.2004 makes no reference to this cheque. 2. Learned counsel counsel for the respondent also contended that even though the learned trial Magistrate had found that there were several deficiencies in the evidence tendered by the complainant, yet invoking presumption in favour of applicant, the learned Magistrate recorded conviction. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly found that the defence of the respondent was probabilized because, among other things, applicant had admitted having taken signatures of the respondent on blank papers which he had produced before the trial Court. 3. In view of the foregoing reasons, it is clear that the dishonour of cheque dated 8th September, 2003 subsequently 3 appln 387 of 2010 changed to 30.4.2004 could be one for security and not for discharge of the liability. The view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be called improbable. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)