1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.3585 OF 2007. Shri Gurudatta Nag San Pat.Sau.Ltd.vs. K.Ravichandran and Anr. Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram, apperances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mrs Tripati Athavale for the Applicant. Mr Dhanaji M. Jadhav for respondent No.1 Mr U.V.Nikam, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J. DATE : 1st July,2009. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time. It is the application for leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal of respondent NO.1 arising out of the proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2 2. After going through the record and the reasoning given by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused, it appears that the Trial Court had held that, `the case as to legally enforceable liability existing as against the respondent No.1 was lacking’. It is also seen that the complaint was lodged for and on behalf of Gurudatta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Pune through its Chairman Subhash Baviskar who signed at the end of the complaint and also as an Advocate of the said complainant. He has also signed Vakalatnama as an Advocate representing the said complainant. He has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief for and on behalf of the complainant. Apparently, the dishonoured cheque was showing the name of the payee as the complainant Patsanstha. Admittedly, apart from the affidavit of the said Advocate for and on behalf of the complainant - Institution and apart from his cross-examination there is no other evidence led before the Trial Court. Even, all the documents such as loan agreement, application for loan, dishonoured memo issued by the bank, demand notice were not proved but only filed before the Trial Court. Defence of the respondent- accused is that of total denial and not signing any such loan documents and as to not giving the said cheque which was dishonoured. Considering the cumulative effect of such 3 evidence and the manner in which the said complaint was filed, it must be said that the Trial Court had rightly decided the matter acquitting the respondent No.1. 3. In view of the above discussion, there is nothing to re-agitate the issue in appeal before this Court. 3. In the result, the present leave petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)