1 Cri-A-3574-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3574 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. ... Applicant (Orig. complainant) vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents (Orig. accused) Mr. Ganesh Gole, Advocate, for the applicant Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 8th March, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The original complainant - Shriram Transport Co.Ltd. has filed this application seeking leave to prefer appeal against acquittal for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.7440/SS/2008. 3. According to the complainant, the accused had purchased a truck for Rs.7 lakh from M/s. Shriram Recon Trucks Ltd. and said M/s. Shriram Recon Trucks Ltd. had also advanced Rs.50,000/- to him to meet the RTO expenses. 2 Cri-A-3574-10.sxw The accused issued a cheque dated 4.12.2007 for an amount of Rs.7 lakh drawn on Shikshak Sahkar Bank Ltd.,Nagpur Branch, Kamtee, Nagpur in favour of M/s. Shriram Recon Trucks Ltd. The cheque was presented by the complainant with its Bank at Mumbai and it was returned dishonoured on 25.2.2008 for want of sufficient funds. Inspite of service of notice, the accused failed to make payment within stipulated period. Hence, the complaint under Sec. 138. 4. The plea of the accused was that he had no transaction with the present complainant or with Shriram Recon Trucks Ltd. According to him, he had issued a blank signed cheque to one Jayant Zod for making payment of insurance amount which was misused. The trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the cheque was issued in favour of M/s. Shriram Recon Trucks Ltd. and there was nothing to show that the complainant was payee or the holder in due course of that cheque. 5. According to the complainant, M/s. Shriram Recon Trucks Ltd. was merged with Shriram, Transport Finance Co.Ltd. as per the Bombay High Court order in Company Petition No.396/2006 dated 18.8.2006. Later on, Shriram Overseas finance Ltd. was merged with the complainant Shriram Transport Finance Ltd. as per the order dated 1.12.2006 passed by the Madras High Court in 3 Cri-A-3574-10.sxw Company Petition Nos. 183 and 184 of 2006. It was contended that in view of these mergers, all the assets, rights and liabilities of M/s. Shriram Recon Trucks Ltd. were finally taken over by the complainant and therefore it is payee or holder in due course of the cheque. The trial Court noted that certified copies of the orders passed by the Bombay High Court and the Madras High Court were not produced. Only photo copies of the same were produced and the photo copies of the copies are not admissible in evidence. The order passed by the High Court is a public document and it can be proved by producing certified copy of the order as per the provisions of Sec. 76 of the Evidence Act. In this case, certified copies were not filed and therefore, the trial Court rightly held that the photo copies of the certified copies were not admissible in evidence. Thus there was no admissible evidence on record to show that the complainant had become payee or holder in due course of the cheque allegedly issued in favour of Shriram Recon Trucks Ltd. In view of this, I find no illegality or mistake in the order passed by the trial Court. 6. Therefore, the application seeking leave to appeal is hereby rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)