( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 838 OF 2009 Shrichakradhar Electrical & Engineering Works, Latur. APPLICANT VERSUS Sandip Sureshrao Patange RESPONDENT ..... Mr. T.M. Venjane, advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.A. Kadam, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 29th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant/appellant seeks leave to appeal under section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Case of the applicant before the trial Court was that the respondent used to obtain the contractual work for maintenance and repairs of electric pumps under the schemes of the Zilla Parishad. The respondent used to give the work for execution to him (complainant) as ( 2 ) per the oral agreement. The work done between May, 2005 to December, 2006 by the complainant was billed at Rs. 1,90,000/-. The respondent received the amount from the Zilla Parishad as a contractor of the said works. Though he should have paid the amount to the applicant as a sub-contractor, or executant of the work, the respondent did not do so. The applicant demanded the amount from time to time and, therefore, the respondent issued cheque dated 08-01-2007 for Rs. 1,90,000/- drawn on Indira Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited. The cheque was dishonoured. Hence, a demand notice was issued which drew blank. The applicant, therefore, instituted the private complaint case for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the respondent is supervisor in Marathwada Vidyut Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha, Latur. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the respondent/accused had no authority to obtain sub- contract on basis of oral agreement. The question is not whether the respondent had the competency to obtain the contracts and to give the sub-contract. The question, in fact, is whether the respondent verbally gave such sub-contract of the work to the complainant and agreed to pay the amount, but lateron had drawn the bill without passing on the amount to the complainant/applicant. Considering the nature of defence, it requires appropriate reconsideration. For, ( 3 ) the respondent did not reply the demand notice. The defence was raised at the trial and it was alleged that the cheque issued by the respondent was lost and, hence, he had published a notice in local newspaper. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case and the nature of controversy, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which the leave to appeal is required to be granted. Hence, the leave to appeal is granted. Present application is accordingly allowed. 4. Admit the appeal. Call for record and proceedings. 5. The applicant/appellant to furnish private paper book within eight (8) weeks. Mr. Kadam waives service for the respondent. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN838-09