1 (Cri appln 1104 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1104 OF 2010 Sunil Sitaram Sawant ...Applicant vs. Smt. Nasira A. Raheman Kazi and Anr. …Respondents ----- Mr.S.S. Redekar for Applicant Mrs.V.R. Bhosale -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED:26TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. 2. The Applicant is the Original Complainant, who aggrieved by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawantwadi dated 18.12.2009 vide Cri. Case No. 138 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the Trial Court was pleased to acquit the Respondent No.1 Accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Brief facts are that the Complainant has alleged in 2 (Cri appln 1104 of 2010) his complaint that he was having friendly relations with the accused and she borrowed Rs.47,000/- from the Complainant. For repayment of the said amount, the Accused had issued a cheque dated 30.11.2007 drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Ratnagiri Branch. However, when the said cheque was deposited, the same was dishonoured. After service of statutory notice and non- payment of the amount demanded by the Complainant, he filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawantwadi. 4. The Trial Court, after perusing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the initial presumption which is raised under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rebutted and thereafter, the complainant could not establish that the said cheque was given for an existing debt or legally enforceable liability. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant has invited my attention to the judgment of the Trial Court and the notes of evidence. 6. In my view, no case is made out for interfering 3 (Cri appln 1104 of 2010) with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawantwadi. 7. In the cross examination of the Complainant, he has admitted that he was not in a position to know the maternal name of the accused nor her father's name, nor he was in a position to prove that the accused was classmate in his school days. Similarly, neither the accused had gone to the house of the complainant nor the complainant had gone to the house of the accused. The Trial Court, therefore, observed that the case of the complainant that he had friendly relations with the accused was not proved and that the accused had succeeded in rebutting the said fact. The Trial Court, therefore, observed that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to clear the possibility created by the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Secondly, during the cross examination, the Complainant denied that he had received a blank cheque containing the signature of the accused. However, he admitted that the amount and the date could be written by him. Therefore, there was an inherent contradiction in his statement. The Trial Court, 4 (Cri appln 1104 of 2010) therefore, observed that in view of discrepancies, it was doubtful that the claim of the complainant become doubtful. After taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court, therefore, acquitted the accused. 9. The view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible view and, therefore, in an appeal against acquittal, this Court is not expected to substitute the view taken by the Trial Court and convict the accused. 10. Hence, leave is refused. Appeal does not survive. (V.M. KANADE J.)