( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2431 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2430 OF 2009 Ganraj Nagri Sahakari Bank Limited, Beed. APPLICANT VERSUS Soniya Off-set Printers RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr. D.J. Choudhari, advocate for the applicant. Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 7th October, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. These are applications for condonation of delay and leave to appeal. 3. There is delay of 30 days in filing of the appeal. According to the applicant – Bank, the delay is caused due to the fact that the respondent had attempted ( 2 ) for settlement and the general policy of the Bank is to settle the dispute with the customers. It is stated that there was no other reason to cause the delay. Considering the explanation given in the application, I deem it proper to accept the same as sufficient cause for the delay. The delay is, therefore, condoned. 4. So far as the application for leave to appeal is concerned, it transpires that almost all the points raised in regard to issuance of the cheque by the respondent, presentation therefor for encashment, dishonour of the cheque and subsequent demand notice contemplated under the law have been answered in favour of the applicant. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent mainly for the reason that the disbursement of the loan amount of rupees one (1) lac for which the cheque was given is not duly proved. The learned Magistrate also observed that CW1 was not duly authorized to testify on behalf of the complainant Bank. The observations made by the learned Judicial Magistrate would show that a printing machine alongwith computer unit was supplied to the respondent by Mr. Kalki Maharaj and the amount was allegedly paid to him for and on ( 3 ) behalf of the respondent. Obviously, instead of disbursement of the loan in terms of cash, it was disbursed, prima facie, in kind. Considering the relevant aspects, I find that this is a fit case in which leave to appeal deserves to be granted. 5. Leave to appeal is granted. Both applications are accordingly allowed. 6. Admit the appeal. 7. Mr. A.M. Gaikwad waives service for the respondent. 8. The appellant to furnish private paper book within twelve (12) weeks. The print is dispensed with. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln2431-2430-09