3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 522/2009 Shri M.D.Shinde, adv for applicant. APP for State. Shri S.D. Kulkarni adv. for R-1. CORAM : V. R. KINGAONKAR, ,J. DATE : 12th October, 2009. 1. This appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal rendered in SCC No.63/2006 and the application is filed under section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel. 3. Section 378 (4) requires special consideration as the leave is not to be granted as a matter of routine. The applicant filed complaint against the respondents for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He alleged that he had lent amount of Rs.2,10.000/- to the respondent for the purpose of the business in as much as the respondent was managing business of the petrol pump of his uncle. There were cordial relations between them which prompted him to give loan amount. The respondent issued cheque dated 3 07.11.2005 drawn on Priyadarshini Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kallam. Said Cheque was dishonoured. He issued demand notice which was duly served on the respondent. The respondent failed to comply with the notice. The respondent gave false reply to the notice of the cheque that there was no such transaction and cheque was not issued by him. 4. Mr. Shinde would submit that due to prior transaction and co-cordial relations the loan amount was given to the respondent by the applicant and that findings of the trial court are improper. I find it difficult to agree with the submissions. 5. The learned judicial magistrate noticed that the loan transaction between the parties was much prior and the liability was barred by limitation. The applicant (complainant) admitted, unequivocally he had given loan @ Rs.12% p.m. It is obvious that the applicant lent the amount on interest. The applicant was not having money lending licence. It was found that the applicant was doing money lending business without licence. Therefore, the Ld. Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was no legal liability to pay the amount shown under the cheque issued by the respondent The respondent gave reply to the notice and at the first available opportunity clarified that he was not liable to pay the amount shown under the cheque. Needless to say, the impugned judgment of acquittal is legal and 3 proper. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused. Appeal is dismissed. [ V. R. KINGAONKAR ,J. ] *** Dt :- 12.10.2009 aaa/522.09