1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 898 OF 2010 Bhanudas Baburao Gavali ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- Rohidas Sakharam Pawal ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. S.S. Manale, advocate for the applicant. Mrs. M.R. Jamdhade, advocate for the respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 13th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This is an application seeking leave to file appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned judgment rendered in S.T.C.C. No. 4091/2005, it appears that the case of the applicant before the Trial Court is that due to cordial relation, he lend an amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- to the respondent on 2nd March, 2005. The respondent issued cheques in question towards the repayment of the said amount. It appears that to the demand notice issued by the applicant, the respondent immediately offered denial to the transaction of loan and alleged that there was transaction in respect of the land which the respondent had agreed to purchase. 2 It was stated by the respondent that the applicant had paid part of money and both the cheques were issued towards security. They were misused by the applicant, and therefore, for want of existing financial liability, the respondent sought acquittal. 3. The applicant is businessman. He did not enter the amount of Rs.1,11,000/- in his daily account dated 2nd March, 2005. No other collateral document was obtained by him regarding the said loan transaction. The respondent not only gave explanation in reply notice but also placed on record the xerox copy of the agreement granting permission to sale the plot of the applicant dated 04.01.2005. The respondent adduced evidence of Notary Public in support of his defence. The loan transaction was allegedly effected on 2nd March, 2005. The said transaction dated 04.01.2005 may be the foreground for payment. The respondent stated in his affidavit that there was agreement of sale in respect of plots between the applicant on one hand, himself and Babasaheb Suryawanshi along with Hanumant Patil on the other hand. The technical reason put forth by the applicant is regarding absence that leave to lead secondary evidence. Be that it may be as it is, the version of Advocate Mr. R.S. More, Notary Public, prima facie, show that the defence of respondent is probable. Considering these aspects, this is not fit case to grant leave to appeal. Hence, 3 the present application is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri898.10