1 (Crim appeal 1174 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1174 OF 2009 Sanjay Raghunath Patil ...Appellant Vs. Amar Balaso Narke and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Indrajeet Joshi for Appellant Mr.A.S. Shitole -APP for State Mr.Nitin B. Patil for Respondent No.1 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 18TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Respondent No.1 and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Appellant has filed this leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 8th Court, Kolhapur, who by his judgment and order dated 4.9.2008 was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the Applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. It is the case of the Appellant that the cheque 2 (Crim appeal 1174 of 2010) which was issued by the Respondent herein was dishonoured after the Appellant had deposited it in his bank. The Trial Court came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence adduced before it that the Respondent No.1 -Accused had not issued the cheque from his account and, therefore, he was not liable under the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. I have perused the judgment and order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence of the Bank's officer, who, in turn, has stated that the Respondent No.1 did not have any account in the said bank. He also did not have any authority to operate the account which was standing in his mother's name. The provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under : “Section 138- Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc. of funds in the account- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with bank for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge.......” 3 (Crim appeal 1174 of 2010) It is thus obvious that since the cheque was not issued from his own account, he cannot be held to be liable. At the highest, the Complainant could have lodged an offence of cheating by the accused. However, no such allegation has been made in this complaint. Hence, no case is made out for grant of leave. 5. Leave is refused. (V.M. KANADE J.)