1 CRA-160-161-06.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2006 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 161 OF 2006 Mrs. Shobha Ashok Adhav .. Applicant Vs. Rajendra Jayaram Gaikwad & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Jayesh B. Kocheta, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Madhav Jamdar,Advocate for the respondent No.1. Ms. S.V.Garade, APP for the respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 27th July, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. perused the impugned Judgments. 2. The present applicant had filed two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the two cheques issued by the respondent No.1, who was accused No.2 in the complaint, were dishonoured and inspite of notice, the payment was not made. The trial Court convicted the accused No.2 in both the cases and passed the order of sentence of imprisonment and fine. In Criminal Appeal Nos.311 of 2004 and 313 of 2004 filed by the accused No.2, 2 CRA-160-161-06.sxw the order of conviction and sentence came to be set aside. That order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court is challenged in the present two Revision Applications. As facts of both the cases are identical, both the Revisions Applications may be disposed of by the common order. 3. The record reveals that accused No.1 was said to be a partnership firm and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were said to be partners of the said firm. Accused No.3 executed a development agreement on behalf of the firm and the complainant entered into an agreement with the accused to purchase a flat for consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- plus miscellaneous charges, etc. As per the said agreement, the complainant deposited amount of Rs.5 lakh with accused persons towards price and other charges. As construction of the building could not be completed within a reasonable time, the agreement was cancelled after some negotiation between the parties. It was alleged that accused No.2 had issued two cheques in favour of the complainant. One cheque was bearing No.119683 dated 20.8.2000 for Rs.1,00,000/-, drawn against Union Bank of India, Kirkee Branch, Pune. The second cheque bearing No.119700 dated 1.10.2000 for amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- drawn against the said Bank was issued in favour of the complainant. Both the cheques were signed by the accused No.2. Those cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and payment was not made inspite of 3 CRA-160-161-06.sxw notice. 4. In her evidence, the complainant admitted that accused No.1 was not a registered partnership firm. She admitted that accused No.2 was not even a partner of the firm. Accused No.2 had signed the agreement only as an attesting witness and not as a partner of the firm. The husband of the complainant had signed the document as a witness just like accused No.2. She admitted that payment of Rs.5 lakh was not made to accused No.2. Thus, accused No.2 had not incurred any liability nor he was liable to pay any amount. He denied that he had signed the cheques in question. The record reveals that the specimen signature of the accused No.2 on the account opening form maintained by the drawee Bank was different from the signature on the cheques in question. Thus, there was no material to show that the cheques were actually signed and issued by the accused No.2. After taking into consideration all this material, the Sessions Court found that no case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was made out against accused No.2 and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate could not be sustained. The learned Sessions Judge also noted that the learned magistrate had not said anything in respect of the liability of accused Nos.1 and 3 with whom the complainant had actually entered into contract and to whom amount was paid by her. 4 CRA-160-161-06.sxw 5. In view of the facts and circumstances, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned Judgments of acquittal. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Revision Applications stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)