:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4574 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4597 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 Rashtrapal Rajaram Bhise. ..Applicant. Vs. Vyankatesh G.Singh and another. ..Respondents. Mr. N.P.Shimpi for the Applicant. Mr. M.D. Pakle for the Respondent No.1. Mrs. M.H.Mhatre,APP. for the State. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 22nd July, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Both these applications are filed for grant of leave to file appeals against the order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though there were two criminal cases, both the cases were disposed off by common judgment and order. It was the complainant’s case that on 10.9.2001 he had advanced an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- to the accused for securing Government job. It is observed by the court that there is no documentary evidence to show that any such amount was advanced. It is observed that in the examination in chief the complainant had stated that the alleged amount said to have been given on 10.9.2001. In the cross examination serious doubt was raised about the story put forth by the complainant because the complainant contended :2: that the amounts were advanced on various times between Aug.2001 to May,2005. It was the complainant’s case that there was yet another transaction also involving amount Rs.1,15,000/-. In his complaint he has contended that loan was given to the accused. However, in the cross examination he has stated that the second amount was given to repay the first loan and as the accused was to get money from the financial institution. It was the case of the accused that blank cheques were given. Though there is a presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was given for legally enforceable debt, it is seen that as regards the discrepancy brought in the cross examination of the complainant itself and as burden cast upon the accused, can be discharged through the cross examination of the complainant, this is a case where such burden is discharged because the complainant is coming out with different stories regarding the payment of amount to the accused at different point of time. In my view, the view taken by the trial court is possible view. It is not a fit case to interfere in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, leave sought in the aforesaid applications is refused. Consequently the appeal papers in the aforesaid matters to be filed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)