1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.628 OF 2011 (BHASKAR HIMMATLAL DHRUV //VS// STATE OF MAH. AND ANOTHER.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. B.N.Mohta, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 24, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is praying for leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 03.03.3011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class and Special Court for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Nagpur in Summary Criminal Complaint Case No. 6214 of 2008. The appellant had advanced hand loan of Rs.Sixty Thousand to the accused and by way of security the respondent/accused issued a cheque in his favour. That cheque was presented to the bank which was dishonoured and therefore, he filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Perused the judgment impugned in this appeal. It was the defence of the respondent/ accused that he had approached the appellant for more financial assistance but had received only Rs.Ten Thousand which was repaid lateron. As regards the cheque in question, it was his defence that he had signed a blank cheque and had delivered it to the appellant. The appellant misused the cheque and the stamp paper. It is, therefore, obvious that the appellant had in his favour a negotiable instrument, signature on which was not 2 disputed by the respondent as well as deed of agreement. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the case of the appellant and proceeded to acquit the respondent. This Court is of the view that in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, arguable points are involved, as such the leave as prayed for is granted. ADMIT Action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. JUDGE RR..