( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1192 OF 2010 M/s Jayraj Jwellers APPLICANT VERSUS Satyaprakash Bansilal Varma RESPONDENT .... Mr. P.H. Kapadia, advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.C. Garud, advocate holding for Mr. B.R. Warma, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is filed by the original complainant for leave to appeal under section 378 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He is aggrieved due to acquittal of the respondent for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.C.C. No. 2663/2008. ( 2 ) 2. Upon hearing learned advocate for the parties and on going through the impugned judgement, it is explicit that though the demand notice was issued by the applicant, yet, it was not replied by the respondent. This conduct of the respondent is not considered by the trial Court. There is no dispute about the fact that the cheque was drawn by the respondent on his account. The cheque had bounced and was returned to the applicant. The learned Judicial magistrate held that the respondent had purchased certain gold ornaments on credit from the applicant. It is held that because the applicant failed to produce receipts regarding the transaction of sale of gold ornaments, the existing liability to pay the amount could not be attributed to the respondent. 3. The respondent failed to explain properly as to why for the cheque was issued. The trial Court noticed that on earlier two occasions, the respondent had purchased gold ornaments vide bills dated 21-10-2007 and 24-12-2007, but no payment was made. The learned Magistrate held that when such bad experience was noticed by the applicant, ordinarily, he would not have sold the gold ornaments on credit. It is pertinent to note that the parties were on friendly terms since long. Therefore, prima facie, the applicant could have ( 3 ) trusted the respondent while giving credit for the third transaction too. In any case, thorough examination of the record is required to reach appropriate conclusion. In this view of the matter, the leave to appeal is granted. The application is accordingly allowed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln1192-10