* 1 * IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 650 OF 2007 Shri. Pradhyuman Vasudev Dabholkar .....Applicant/Orig.Accused V/S. 1. Mrs.Laxmi Narayan Shiveshwarkar .....Resp no.1/Orig.Comp 2. The State of Maharashtra ......Respondent no.2 ------- Mr.C.S.Joshi, adv.for applicant. Mr.AnilKumar Patil, adv.for respondent no.1. Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP for State-respondent no.2. CORAM:- SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 5TH OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This Criminal Revision Application arises out of the judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2007 of the District Court, Nasik, upholding conviction of the applicant under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned judgment also confirms the sentence of fine imposed upon the applicant but sets aside the order of his simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months in case of default in payment of fine. 3. The applicant, who is, the Director of a company by name Finotex Fibrecast is the relative of the respondent no.1. It is the case of respondent no. * 2 * 1 that she had in January, 2005 given a hand loan of Rs.4 lacs to the applicant for the purposes of his business. In discharge of that liability, the applicant had delivered four cheques each in the sum of Rs.1 lacs drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd to respondent no.1. One of the cheque being Cheque No.163572 when presented for payment was dishonoured on the ground that the Account is closed. Therefore, respondent no.1 sent a statutory notice to the applicant and later filed proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against him. The defence of the applicant was that during the period November, 2001 to March, 2002, as he was required to attend to the business at Pondicherry, he had entrusted the responsibility of looking after his company to the husband of respondent no.1. The applicant had entrusted with the husband some money, as also, delivered four cheques, each of Rs. 1 lacs drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. These cheques were to be utilised only in case of emergency. When the applicant returned from Pondicherry he demanded the accounts from the husband of respondent no.1. The husband told that the cheques were misplaced and could not be traced. The applicant did not doubt the word of husband of respondent no.1 and kept quiet. He contends that the cheques have later been misused by respondent no.1. The trial court rejected the defence of the applicant and convicted him to the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments act. The appellate court has extensively considered the contentions of the applicant, his defence raised and the evidence brought in support thereof. * 3 * It found that if the cheques were to be given to the husband of respondent no. 1 for the purpose of making payment on behalf of the company, there was no need to draw the cheques in the name of respondent no.1. It was sought to be contended by the applicant that he had given blank cheques to the husband of respondent no.1 and the suggestions to that were given to respondent no.1 in her cross-examination. However, these suggestions were seen to be contrary to the record produced by the applicant himself. The record consists of counter- foil of the cheque which discloses that the cheques were drawn in the name of respondent no.1, and its particulars, except the date were filled in at the time of drawing of the cheque and delivering the same to respondent no.1. Then it was sought to be argued on behalf of the applicant that the cheques were drawn in the name of the respondent no.1 because the financial condition of her husband was not good and the bank would not have accepted the cheque in the name of her husband. The learned appellate court has rightly rejected the so called explanation an observation that financial condition of the husband of respondent no.1 was immaterial for issuing the cheque in his name. Both the courts have found the defence raised by the applicant to be false and untenable. There is no error or illegality with the impugned judgment of the appellate court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. 4. With the dismissal of the Revision Application, Criminal Application NO.52 of 2008 does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. * 4 * [JUDGE]