1 appln 237 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2011 M/s Pavilion and Interiors .. Applicant -versus M/s Asian Pacific Dental Congress and ors .. Respondents. Mr. E. A Sasi, for the Applicant. Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 9th June, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against acquittal of respondent by the learned 33rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Learned counsel for the applicant may be right in submitting that out of Rs.70,00,000/- due, accused had paid sum of Rs.63,00,000/- only. However, there is receipt at exh.21 of a cheque of Rs.12,00,000/- which mentions that it was towards full and final payment. This was accompanied by the letter at Exh.22, written by accused requesting to return Rs.3,00,000/- allegedly given by way of security. It is this cheque which was dishonoured. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that D. W.1, Raju Agarwal had no authority to say that the dues of respondent accused 2 appln 237 of 2011 were finally settled, as Rs.7,00,000/- remained to be recovered. Even so it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate is wrong in holding that the defence raised by the accused is probable since D.W. Raju Agarwal was in the employment of applicant as Marketing Manager. He has stated that the receipt was not prepared by him but prepared by the accounts department. No witness is examined on behalf of the complainant from its accounts department to show as to how receipt at Exh. 21 was prepared and letter at Exh.22 was dealt with. The counterfoil receipt at exh. 21 is also not produced. Therefore, it cannot be said that the words that the account was finally settled was interpolated. Raju Agarwal continued to be in the employment of the company for quite some time and it is not made clear when he left the job and what action was taken by the company against him as he had waived the balance of Rs.7,00,000/- to be recovered by the company. Raju Agarwal is now working with another firm which was run by one of the erstwhile partners of the complainant firm. Therefore, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is improbable or perverse. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)