1 Cri.A.1108.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1108 OF 2010 [ Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Patil and another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr.Swpanil S.Patil,Advocate holding for Mr.Alok Sharma,Advocate for applicant. Mr.Hemant Surve,Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : U.D.SALVI, J. DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard. 1. Perused the application and record. The Cheque in question, according to the applicant/complainant was issued by the respondent/accused No.1 towards payment of the installment due from borrower respondent/accused No.2, in capacity as guarantor in favour of the applicant/complainant. Relationship of the accused No. 1 as guarantor with applicant/complainant remains shrouded in 2 Cri.A.1108.10 doubt and that is the reason why there has been acquittal of the accused, as per observations made by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment, which read as follows: “18.In this respect the complainant relied on the oral evidence adduced by witness Kailas Sakharam Janjal below Exh.73 and Abhijit Vijayrao Deshpande below Exh.78. Kailas Sakharam Janjal is the Recovery Officer of Devgiri Nagri Sahakari Bank and during his oral evidence he submitted that complainant has taken responsibility of debt of accused No.2 and memorandum of understanding is executed in this respect on dated 08.10.1998. But no such document is filed on record nor it is proved. Witness Abhijit Vijayrao Deshpande substantiated that complainant paid Rs. 6,30,018/- to Devgiri Nagari Saharki Bank towards outstanding of accused No.2 and took matter for recovery with issue also substantiated that, 3 Cri.A.1108.10 one hire purchase agreement was executed and accused No.1 stood as a guarantor for accused No.2 and accordingly he had given three cheques bearing No.80267,80268, 80266 i.e. present cheques Exh.39. In the cross examination this witness admitted that the agreement of hire purchase was not executed in his presence. He do not know the contents of that agreement. He has no concern with the terms and conditions mentioned in that agreement. He has no concerned with the person who stood as a guarantor for the accused No.2“ . Perusal of the record reveals that the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondents/accused. Leave is refused. The application is disposed off accordingly. Sd/- [U.D.SALVI, J.] MTK