1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.126 2009. Anil s/o Babulal Katariya ..Applicant. V E R S U S Vijay s/o Balasaheb Kale. ..Respondent. Mr.L.B.Pallod, Advocate for the applicant. CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 27th July, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. Heard. 2- The application is filed for leave to appeal. The respondent was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned judgment discloses that, the fact regarding issuance of cheque and service of notice were not disputed. The Learned Magistrate seems to have acquitted the accused due to discrepancies in the version of the applicant as regards dates on which the loan amount was given. It appears that, the question regarding presumption 2 available under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not properly addressed. Considering this aspect of the matter, I find that this is a fit case in which leave to appeal is required to be granted. Though served respondent is absent and hence, I could not hear his side. 3- Leave to appeal is granted. 4- Admit appeal. 5- Notice returnable on 24th August, 2009. 6- Call for record and proceedings. (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) aaa/126.09.odt ***