1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4685 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. ...Applicant. v/s. Mr. Ranjeet C. Kripalani & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Prakash Naik ,adv. For the Applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP For the Respondent No.2/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 7, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who is original complainant. Complainant is co-operative bank. M/s. Indu Investments had availed credit facilities from the complainant and the respondent no. 1/accused had allegedly stood as a guarantor for the same. According to the complainant, the debtor failed to make the payment and, therefore, the complainant secured recovery certificate under section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and an award was passed issuing recovery certificate dated 30.5.2003. Accused/respondent no.1, who was guarantor filed Writ Petition No.1882 of 2004 challenging the legality of the recovery certificate. High Court stayed the execution of the recovery 2 certificate by an order dated 23.7.2004 . That stay order was continued from time to time and the last order continuing the said stay order was passed on 13.8.2010. According to the complainant the accused had issued cheque dated 15.2.2007 for an amount of Rs.10,33,000/- drawn by Andhra Bank Branch in favour of the complainant. That cheque was deposited but was returned unpaid with endorsement “funds insufficient”. After receipt of the intimation, the complainant issued notice to the accused but he did not make the payment within stipulated period. Complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it was registered as Criminal Case No.737 of 2007 before the Metropolitan Magistrate 60th Court Kurla. The learned Magistrate after trial acquitted the accused by the judgment and order dated 29.7.2009 mainly on the ground that when the said cheque was issued and dishonoured, there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability because since the year 2004, stay to the operation and implementation of the recovery proceedings was in force. Admittedly, shortly before the judgment of acquittal was passed, High Court had directed the accused to file appropriate proceedings before the Divisional Joint Registrar challenging the legality of the recovery certificate and the said challenge was pending before the said Divisional Joint Registrar. 3 Admittedly, at that time also stay to the execution of the recovery proceedings was in force. 2 In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not see any valid reason to grant leave to challenge to prefer appeal against the judgment and order of the acquittal. 3 For the aforesaid reason, application seeking leave to prefer appeal is rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)