[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.201 OF 2008 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2008 Mr.V.R.Kamath ..Applicant Vs. G.Abbas Ali and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.S.B.Shetty Advocate for Applicant Mr.Rajesh More APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-original complainant has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 26th November, 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Mumbai in Case No.888/SS/2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondent No.1-accused of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the evidence which has been produced [-2-] by him as well as the judgment and order. 3. The case of the complainant is that the accused has agreed to sell land to the complainant for Rs.15 lakhs. The complainant paid Rs.13,19,500/- in instalments during the span of 6 to 7 years. Subsequently, the prices of land went up. Accused wanted to shift his garage on the said piece of land and hence, he intended to return the money received from the complainant. Therefore, the cheque came to be issued. As the cheque was not honoured, the complaint came to be filed. 4. Though the complainant claims to have entered into an agreement to purchase the land from the accused for which money came to be advanced, no written agreement has been produced. According to the complainant, no written agreement was entered into by the parties. Even otherwise, the complainant has not stated where the land is situated and how much is the area of the land. Complainant has stated that he does not know the date when he entered into an agreement with the accused. So also, no details have been given regarding the amount of Rs.13,19,500/- being given to the accused i.e. on what date how much amount [-3-] is given. The complainant has failed to give the detail account of the money advanced to the accused. Even though the complainant claims that lakhs of rupees have been advanced by him to the accused, he has not taken any receipt for the same from the accused. 5. P.W.2 Mohan produced Exhibit-P-46 showing that on 8.6.2001 a letter was written to the accused by the complainant that the impugned cheque is being produced for realisation and whether the accused’s consent for the same. This letter bears the alleged endorsement of the accused accepting the liability and settling the same within the first week of August 2001 and to clear the amount by the end of August, 2001. The existence of this letter has not been deposed to by the complainant neither in complaint nor in evidence. The witness admits that neither the endorsement nor the signature was made by the accused in his presence. 6. As far as the agreement of sale of land is concerned, it is to be noted that accused has denied that he owns any such land. As stated earlier, the complainant has not given any details [-4-] in respect of the said land. It is strange that person enters into agreement to purchase land for lakhs of rupees in the year 1989 and he does not get the agreement reduced into writing. Complainant is not able to state any details of the land to be purchased. In such case, the conclusion of the learned Magistrate that the cheque has not been issued for the discharge of legally enforceable liability as alleged by the complainant, is a reasonable and possible view. 7. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary [-5-] opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. 8. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 9. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]