1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPA] No. 430 of 2010 (Suresh S/o. Pralhad Sontakke Vs. Smt. Rajeshshree W/o. Amar Kamble and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. J.M. Gandhi, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Kakade, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 1 CORAM : M. N. GILANI, J. DATE : 8 th JULY, 2011. Heard both sides. Applicant-Suresh Pralhad Sontakke, was the complainant in Sum. Cri. Complaint Case No. 124/2005, decided on 21/01/2010 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. It was alleged in the complaint that on 11/04/2002 the respondent no. 1/accused had issued a cheque in favour of the applicant-complainant. It was for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. It was dishonoured when it was submitted to the bank. Therefore, the notice was issued and then the complaint came to be filed. In paragraph no. 7 of the judgment, learned Magistrate observed that accused did not dispute her signature on the cheque. However, she came with a case that the said cheque was given by her to one Vijay Meshram and inadvertently said Vijay Meshram gave the said cheque to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant misused the same. Despite the provision of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, learned Magistrate believed such defence. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 2 invited my attention to the observations made by learned Magistrate in paragraph no. 9 of the judgment. Learned Magistrate, had made reference to the evidence of Govind Yadav, examined by the complainant. He was examined to prove that he had accompanied the complainant to the house of accused for demanding money. In cross-examination he admitted that he was not aware about the transaction of complainant giving amount to the accused. In fact, said Govind Yadav was examined to show that he had accompanied the complainant to the house of accused to demand money due from the latter. Having gone through the case of the complainant and the judgment delivered by learned Magistrate, I am of the view that leave to prefer an appeal, as prayed for, needs to be granted. Leave to prefer an appeal, as prayed for, is granted. Appeal: Admit Learned counsel accepts the notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Hence, action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is dispensed with. JUDGE *Sdw