1 Appln 661-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.661 OF 2011 Vinayak Krushnaji Thakur .Applicant V/s. Pramod Madhukar Athawale & anr. .Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5706 OF 2009 Uttam Tukaram Patil .Applicant V/s. Pramod Madhukar Athawale & anr. .Respondents Mr.K.S.Patil, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.Teja Katdare, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1 Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 25TH JULY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. These are the applications for leave to file an Appeal against Judgment of acquittal of respondent No.1 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C., Roha in two cases for dishonour of two cheques. The 2 Appln 661-2011 Complainant claimed that the accused was his friend. The accused wanted him to stand as surety for getting a loan from the bank but instead, the accused got the loan in the name of the complainant, received the money and eventually issued cheques towards repayment of the said loan. It is not the Complainant's case that he wanted to arrange the money for the accused, but he wanted to stand as surety for the loan which accused was to obtain from the bank. In that case, he should have realized that the documents which were signed before the bank were not as surety but as borrower. He should have also realized that he would have signed receipt for money before the Bank for withdrawing the money. 3. Though the reference to the Judgment in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, reported at 2008 ALL MR(Cri) 1164 (S.C.) may not be appropriate in view of subsequent Judgment of the Supreme Court in 3 Appln 661-2011 Rangappa v. Mohan, reported at 2010 CRI.L.J. 2871, it does not follow that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the accused rebutted presumption in respect of the cheques which were dishonoured, since there was nothing to show that the accused owed the Complainant any money. The Complainant had admitted in his cross examination that he had filed a complaint before the police and as a part of action by police the accused gave him two cheques. In view of this, view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted. Leave refused. Appeals dismissed. 4. Criminal Applications stand disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)