..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.971 OF 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 Mr.Radheshyam J. Gupta. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. ... Mr.O.P.Singh, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 5th June, 2008. DATED : 5th June, 2008. DATED : 5th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2007 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, 50th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai in Case No.1529/C/2002. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent No.2-orig. accused of the offence under Section of 138 of N.I.Act. 2. The case of the complainant is that as the complainant and the accused are from the same ..(2).. transport business, he lent Rs.90,000/- to the accused in cash. The cheque in question was issued in respect of the said amount of Rs.90,000/-. As the said cheque was not honoured, complaint came to be filed. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant-Orig.complainant. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been annexed. 4. It is the specific case of the complainant that he lent Rs.90,000/- in cash to the accused as he knew the accused due to the accused being in the same transport business. However, in the cross-examination the complainant surprisingly has stated that he does not know what business the accused does. He has stated that there are no business relations between himself and the accused. According to the complainant, he knows the accused only because he hails from Uttar Pradesh. The complainant was confronted with some of the statements in the demand notice sent by him to accused wherein he has stated that he placed ..(3).. several orders for supply of chemicals with the accused as he had trust in the accused. The complainant denied having stated so in the notice. According to the complainant he has not placed any order of supply of chemicals with the accused. It has not been explained anywhere by the complainant in what context the above statement was made in the demand notice. Looking to all these facts, it appears that the very basis, on which the complainant states that he advanced loan of Rs.90,000/- to the accused, appears to be false and concocted. In such case, it cannot be said that any legally enforceable liability arises therefrom. 5. According to the complainant, he gave cash of Rs.90,000/- to the accused in April, 2002. He admits that he did not take anything in writing or any receipt or any security from the accused in respect of advancing the amount of Rs.90,000/-. He has not made any entry of this amount in his books of account nor this amount has been shown in his income tax returns. Useful reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of ..(4).. Vasudev Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vilas Shripati Kamble Vasudev Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vilas Shripati Kamble Vasudev Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vilas Shripati Kamble reported in 2006(2) Bombay C.R.(Cri.) 1 2006(2) Bombay C.R.(Cri.) 1 2006(2) Bombay C.R.(Cri.) 1, wherein it is observed as under : "The observation seen by the trial Court that amount allegedly paid by complainant during period has not been reflected in income Tax returns as well as in books of account. Reasons recorded by the court below on appreciation of evidence on record, impugned judgment cannot be said to be unreasonable and perverse." 6. It is the case of the accused that he had signed the disputed cheque. He had also written the amount in figures and words. However, he had kept the name of the payee blank as he was to ascertain the correct name of the payee from the party. In order to ascertain the correct name, he was proceeding to the P.C.O., but, in transit the cheque was misplaced. Hence, he immediately informed the bank about the cheque being misplaced and to stop the payment. The evidence on record ..(5).. shows that the bank was immediately informed about this fact. On that day an amount of Rs.2,25,450/- was lying in his account hence he withdrew the said amount. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has stated that the accused did not sign the cheque in his presence. It is further pertinent to note that the cheque on record reveals that the payees name was written by somebody else and it is not in the same handwriting as that of the accused. Looking to the evidence on record, the defence taken by the accused appears to be probable and the case of the complainant appears to be false. 7. Looking to the evidence on record,I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)