1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.548 OF 2009 Mohan s/o Shivram Korde .. APPLICANT VERSUS Bhagwan s/o Sainaji Deokar .. RESPONDENT Shri C.J. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant. Shri B.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for the applicant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 6 th July, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an application seeking leave to file appeal against theorder of acquittal recorded by the learned 4 th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad in SCC no. 913/2002 on 1-12-2008. 2 Prosecution initiated at the instance of the petitioner is for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the contention of the complainant that an amount of Rs.22,500/- was handed over to the accused towards hand loan and the accused has in turn issued a cheque of Rs.22,500/- towards repayment of the amount. On presentation of the cheque with the bank the same came to be returned with an endorsement that the accused has instructed to stop the payment. Complainant issued notice to the accused and as accused failed to pay amount within stipulated period, complaint came to be lodged. On presentation of complaint, process came to be issued against the accused. 2 In response to summons issued by court accused caused his appearance and denied all the contentions. It is the defence of the accused that there was some different transaction in respect of sale of computer and there was no legally enforceable liability as contended by the complainant. The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence placed on record directed acquittal of the accused. 3 I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge. The trial Judge has recorded finding that the complainant has failed to establish existence of legally enforceable liability or debt. There is no evidence on record produced by the complainant except the bare version of his wife that he handed over amount of rs.22,500/- towards hand loan to the accused. However, defence version supported by the statement of defence witnesses and the copies of the document placed on record, do indicate that there was some other transaction apart from the one as contended by the complainant. On perusal of the judgment, I am convinced that the view adopted by the learned trial Judge is a possible view. Merely because some other view is also possible in the facts and circumstances of the case is not a ground for causing interference, in an order of acquittal passed by trial court. Application seeking leave to file appeal is devoid of substance. Hence stands rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/criappln548.09.odt