1 Cri.Appln.1174.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1174 OF 2011 Navindchandra S/o Chandulal Patel APPLICANT VERSUS Rehmankhan Masukhan (Deceased) & others RESPONDENTS ..... Shri G.C. Nawandar, Advocate h/f A.M. Gholap Advocate for the applicant Shri N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent /State Shri Shaikh Naseer, Advocate for respondent No. 2 ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 14 th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused application and the record. 2. Leave is sought to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal of the surviving accused Jamil khan Masum khan in the Criminal case- R.C.C. No. 49/99 lodged for the offences under Sections 420,468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusawal on 19-11-2010. 2 Cri.Appln.1174.11 3. According to the complainant, the deceased accused No. 1 Raheman Khan Masum khan brother of the surviving accused, took hand loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One lakh fifty thousand only) from him, on 21-08-1997 and issued the cheque in question bearing No. 933351 dated 27-08-1997 for Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One lakh fifty thousand only) drawn on Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jalgaon, Varangaon Branch, and the said cheque was dishonored,for the reason that it did not bear the signature of account holder. The complainant lamented that his enquiries revealed issuance of the said cheque from the cheque book issued by the bank to the accused No. 2 Jamil Khan as the account holder, and that the accused No. 2 Jamil khan failed and neglected to explain the phenomenon of issuance of cheque from his account by the deceased accused No. 1 Raheman khan Masum khan. 4. The trial Court found nothing in the evidence to attribute any role to the surviving accused No. 2 Jamil khan in the crime, and proceeded to acquit the accused No. 2 Jamil Khan. Perusal of the evidence of PW-1 Navinchandra Patel, the complainant and PW-2 Dnynadev Patil, Bbank official reveal no specific role of the accused No. 2 Jamil khan in the crime. In the 3 Cri.Appln.1174.11 present case, except the fact that the cheque book from which the cheque in question was issued to the complainant was the cheque book issued to accused No. 2 Jamil khan as a account holder and he had accepted the said cheque book. However, this fact is not sufficient to rope in the accused No. 2 Jamil khan for want of any evidence regarding his knowledge about drawing of the cheque in question by his brother Raheman khan Masum khan at the material time. 5. No interference is therefore, warranted in the present case. Leave is, therefore, refused. Criminal Application No. 1174 /2011 stands disposed off accordingly. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* September-11