1 Appln 59-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.63 OF 2011 Dr. Pralhad Vishnu Pawar .Applicant V/s. Manohar Pandurang Chavan & anr. .Respondents Mr.J.Shekhar i/b. M/s.J.Shekhar & Co., Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.S.A.Shaikh, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 6TH JULY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. These are the applications for leave to file an Appeal against acquittal of respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable 2 Appln 59-2011 Instruments Act in five complaints, ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Satara. These applications are being disposed of by this common order since the transaction which gave rise to the five complaints have been filed is the same. The applicant  original Complainant claimed that he had ancestral Gold ornaments worth Rs.5,00,000/-. He had approached the accused, who is Gold Smith with those ornaments for getting them converted into new Gold ornaments. The accused is alleged to have told the Complainant that instead of converting those old Gold ornaments into new Gold ornaments, he would sell old ornaments and from the proceeds he could purchase new Gold ornaments as required by the Complainant. The Complainant claims to have told the accused to bring those ornaments. The accused did nothing and did not bring any ornaments to the Complainant. The Complainant, therefore, approached accused and then the accused agreed to issue five cheques 3 Appln 59-2011 of Rs.1,00,000/- each payable with a gap of ten days each. The first cheque was dated 10th January, 2008 and the last cheque was dated 20th February, 2008. The Complainant presented the first cheque and it was dishonoured on 12th January, 2008 itself but he did nothing in the matter. He then presented the second cheque dated 20 th January, 2008 on 6th February, 2008 and it was dishonoured on 7th February, 2008. On the same day he presented the third cheque dated 31 st January, 2008 and it too got dishonoured. Even after dishonour of the three cheques, the Complainant waited for the remaining two cheques to be dishonoured and then eventually gave notice on 28th February, 2008, after presenting the first cheque again on 6th February, 2008, since without that notice would not have been within limitation in respect of that cheque. It was also dishonoured again and then the complaint was filed. 4 Appln 59-2011 3. The Complainant stated in his cross examination that he did not have any evidence about the ornaments which he had. He does not have any details as to which ornaments had to be prepared or what was the weight of those ornaments. Therefore, there is nothing to show that he had ornaments worth Rs.5,00,000/- to be given to the accused. He examined one Janardan Sitaram Bhosale, who is also a Gold Smith as his witness. Curiously, this witness stated that the Complainant had approached him on 21st January, 2007 with his ornaments and he had weighed each ornament and made a list as well as estimate of the ornaments which were with the Complainant. Now, when the Complainant was examining this witness, who had the list of ornaments with him, it is strange that the Complainant could not give detail of the ornaments which he had given to the accused. Janardan appears to be got up witness, whose Affidavit was filed on 30th January, 2009 after the cross examination of 5 Appln 59-2011 the Complainant was over to make up the deficiencies opened up in the evidence of the Complainant. 4. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate erred in refusing to believe the complainant in all the five cases which had been filed by the Complainant. Hence, leave refused. Appeals dismissed. 5. Criminal Applications are disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)