1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.947 OF 2010 Shri Shrihari Govindrao Chate - APPLICANT VERSUS Uddhav Manikrao Karad - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar,Advocate for Applicant; Mr.RR Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J. DATE : 3rd August, 2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2) This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22nd December, 2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambajogai in S.C.C.No. 123/1999, acquitting the respondent (original 2 accused) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3) I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 22nd December, 2009 as well as Record and proceedings with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties. 4) Admittedly, the accused, i.e. respondent herein, faced the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act in SCC No.123/1999 for the alleged dishonour of cheque bearing No.222345, dated 3rd November, 1998 for Rs.80,000/-, which was allegedly issued by the respondent/accused to the complainant towards the payment of the salary. In the said context, the learned trial Judge has observed in the impugned judgment, that the complainant claimed his salary of 28 months from 16.6.1996 to 30.4.1997 and from 1.4.1997 to 31.12.1998, but admitted that in August 1996, the Salary Register contained his signature, as having received the amount of salary by him and, therefore, the question arises 3 as to how the complainant claimed the salary of 28 months, and consequently, the learned trial Judge observed, in view of such admission, the complainant’s claim for 28 months’ salary for Rs. 84,000/- will not be well founded and the presumption attached to the cheque, in question, which was issued for discharge of legal liability, also stands to be rebutted. 5) Apart from that, on scrutinizing the record, the learned trial Judge observed that the present complaint was filed on 9th February, 1999, whereas the complainant admitted in oral evidence that the accused received the demand notice on 29.1.1999 and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 138(c) of the N.I.Act, the cause of action for filing the complaint accrues after the lapse of fifteen days from 29.1.1999, i.e. on 13th February, 1999. But, admittedly, the complainant has filed the complaint prior to the said date, i.e. on 9th February, 1999 and hence it is obvious that the present complaint is premature and not 4 tenable. 6) After analyzing and appreciating the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial Judge, while acquitting the accused/respondent, appears to be a possible view to be adopted; and the reasoning given therefor appears to be proper and logical and same cannot be faulted with as well as the view adopted by the learned trial Judge does not appear to be perverse and, therefore, no interference therein is called for. 7) In the result, the present application, being sans merits, stands dismissed and leave to file appeal stands refused. R. and P. be sent back to the trial Court. (SHRIHARI P.DAVARE) JUDGE bdv/947.10cran