1 appln 1106 of 2010 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1106 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1045 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1107 OF 2010 Nirmal Dewan .. Applicant. -versus Shri Anand Shroff and ors .. Respondents. Mr. Sandeep Velkar, for the Applicant. Mr. H. H. Nagi, for the respondent No.1. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 5th July, 2011 P.C. 1. These three applications for leave to file appeal against judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, whereby he reversed the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and acquitted the respondent, are being dealt with by this common order. 2. The learned Magistrate had convicted the respondent for dishonour of three cheques issued in the year 2005 towards the loan taken in the year 2004. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction. Complaint had been filed by the person in whose name cheques were 2 appln 1106 of 2010 drawn. He expired and therefore, his widow prosecuted complaints further. 3. One of the contentions raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as is reflected in para 5 of the judgment in the three appeals, is that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the cheques were issued by the accused in the year 2005 i.e one year after loan was given to the accused and no man of prudence would believe that if the loan was availed in the year 2004, the cheques could be issued in the year 2005. The learned Judge also seems to have held that the loans were already repaid in the year 2004 and defence was probabilised by the accused. First if the loan is taken in the year 2004, it would be obviously repaid after 2004 and not before 2004. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in issuing cheques in the year 2005. Secondly as observed by the learned Judge in para in para 30 of the judgment that the accused does not deny the transaction in question, but it is defence of the accused that the amounts which they had borrowed had been repaid in the year 2004 and therefore there was no question of issuing any cheque in the year 2005. Once the transaction is admitted, it would be necessary for the defence to show that the amounts were repaid. Even the learned Judge observed in para 30 of the judgment that the accused failed to establish relation of alleged payments with the transaction in question. In the face of this, acquittal of the 3 appln 1106 of 2010 respondents after reversing judgment of the trial Court would require reconsideration. Leave granted. Admit. Call for R & P. Action under Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)