1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4661 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 Shri Vijayanand M. Kolapkar ...Applicant. v/s. Shri Vilas N. Bhagat & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Manoj Patil i/by Shri Pratap Patil , advs. For the Applicant. Smt.U.V.Kejriwal, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 7, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who is original complainant. 2 Complainant is Chartered Accountant and according to him in September, 2008, he had advanced an amount of Rs.1 lac to the accused/respondent as he was in need of money for construction of his house and shop . Amount was to be repaid within four months. The accused was not in a position to make payment within four months. Hence, for the repayment of the said amount, he issued post dated cheque dated 5.1.2009 against his account maintained with Shri Sharada Sahakari Bank Ltd. On 12.1.2009, cheque was presented and on 2 14.1.2009 cheque was returned dishonoured on the ground that accused had closed his account. Thereafter, notice was issued by the complainant but in spite of service of notice sent under certificate of posting, he did not make the payment within the stipulated period hence the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. 3 Defence of the accused was that he had previously also taken loans from the complainant and he had issued the blank cheque to the complainant in the year 2007 and that cheque has been misused to file complaint. He denied that said cheque was issued by him for the alleged loan given to him in the September, 2008. 4 Trial Court noted that disputed cheque no.1894196; which was allegedly issued on 5.1.2009, was from a particular series of cheques in cheque-book. Cheques of that cheque book were issued and were also encashed and debit entries were taken in the account of the accused in the year 2007 itself. He specifically pointed out that cheque no.189495 was encashed on 9.2.2007 and cheque no.189497 was encashed on 10.2.2007 and debit entries were taken in the account of the accused. In view of this, trial Court held that plea of the accused that this cheque was also issued in the year 2007, was probable. 3 5 It is settled position of law that normally appellate Court will not interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal unless it appears to be per-se wrong, illegal or perverse. It is also settled that High Court will not interfere in the order of acquittal merely because on re- appreciation of evidence a different view is also possible. In the present case, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances inference drawn by the trial Court does not appear to be wrong or perverse. 6 Therefore, this application for leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)