1 CR.APLN.251.11.odt mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 251 OF 2011 Asha R. Desai ...Applicant/Orig.Complainant Vs. Suhas P. Thakur & Anr. ...Respondents/Orig.Accused Mr. Devidas Keluskar i/b. Smt. V. Nirmala, Advocate for Applicant Mr. Jayesh Bhatt, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, A.P.P for the State CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 4TH MAY, 2011 P.C. : 1. This application came up for hearing on 2 nd May 2011. It was extensively argued. Some further instructions were to be taken by the Advocate for the Applicant. The Advocate for the Applicant is now stated to have left Mumbai on the ground that her mother-in-law is ill. She has not taken any instructions and not given any instructions. The criminal application is to be considered from the material on record. 2. The Applicant lodged the criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 upon a dishonoured cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The accused has denied receipt of the amount alltogether. Hence the Court had to see whether the cheque was issued for a legally enforciable liability. The grant of the loan has not been shown by the Applicant. The learned Judge has considered the status of the Applicant. 2 CR.APLN.251.11.odt She was running a beauty parlour. She stated that she earned Rs.7000/- p.m. Her husband is a driver. She did not know the accused at all. She came in contact with the accused through the goldsmith. She is stated to have handed over Rs.2,50,000/- in a lumpsum to the accused. This was given in the absence of her husband. She was called upon to account for this amount during the course of cross examination. She did not herself state the sources of the receipt of such amount. In the cross examination she mentioned about the sale of landed property of her father from which she received Rs.1,60,000/-. 3. The accused contended that he had only taken Rs.25,000/- and refunded by different pay orders. The Bank slips were verified by the learned Judge to see the pay orders deposited and credited in the account of the Complainant/Applicant. 4. The learned Judge has concluded that such a transaction could not have taken place. Consequently, the Applicant did not make out a case of legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The acquittal cannot be faulted. Leave to appeal is refused. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)