35revn326.06.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No.326 of 2006 (Sunil Domnic Alpholso .vs. Nileshsingh Brijnathsingh Thakur and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: A. P. Bhangale, J. Date : 03/05/2011. Heard Mr.A.G.Mujumdar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2/State. The revision applicant as well as the Counsel representing him are absent. Respondent No.1 and his Counsel are also absent. It appears that, by an order dt.16.4.2010, this Court had specifically directed the revision applicant to produce copy of the judgment delivered by the learned trial Magistrate within two weeks. But, the Office note indicates that the said was not complied with. Despite the subsequent adjournments, no care has been taken to comply with the said order passed by this Court. Thereafter, the revision application was fixed for final hearing. I have considered the contentions 35revn326.06.odt 2 . raised in the revision application and also perused the Judgment delivered on 24.11.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2006 by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Prima facie, it appears that the complainant and the accused had cordial relations between them and the accused had requested the complainant to borrow from him Rs.20,000/- to meet his financial problems. The complainant had advanced a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash in the month of June, 2003 to the accused who promised to repay the same. The accused had issued a cheque bearing No.0925361 (Exh.27), dt.28.10.2003 drawn upon the State Bank of India which was signed by him. The complainant appears to have presented the same on 11.11.2003 which was dishonoured and returned back on account of “insufficient funds” in the account of the accused. The Cheque return memo is produced at Exh.28. Vide notice of demand (Exh.29) dt. 19.4.2004 sent by Registered Post, in respect of which postal receipts Exh.30 and 31 were produced, the accused was asked to pay the cheque amount. Said notice was returned back with postal remark “not claimed”. It appears that, considering all these aspects and the rulings 35revn326.06.odt 3 . cited on behalf of the accused, the learned Additional Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Nagpur by reasoned judgment dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused. I have gone through the impugned judgment with the help of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the second respondent who had graciously assisted the Court in respect of the controversy between the parties in this case. Prima facie, there appears no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. JUDGE jais