crapln868.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.868 OF 2010. Vishnu s/o Vithalrao Supekar. .. APPLICANT. VERSUS Shriram s/o Raghu Rathod. .. RESPONDENT. ... Shri H.K. Mundhe, Advocate for applicant. Shri S.P. Golegaonkar, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 19th January, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and order. It is not necessary to reiterate the facts since those are extensively extracted by the concerned Court against whose judgment this application is filed seeking leave to appeal. crapln868.10 2 2. On perusal of the impugned judgment and also the record & proceedings made available for perusal of this Court, it does appear that the applicant herein did not prove his case that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was mentioned in the cheque was given as hand loan to the respondent. The trial Court has observed in the judgment that no any written document or any oral evidence other than the complaint has been placed on record by the applicant to prove his case that the amount was given as a hand loan. This position is not disputed by the Counsel for the applicant. However, the Counsel for applicant submits that since the complainant entered into witness box and, therefore, believing the evidence of the complainant and also the fact that cheque was signed by the respondent, the Court should have allowed the complaint. 3. In my opinion, the conclusion drawn by the trial Court that the applicant has not proved crapln868.10 3 his case that the amount was given to the respondent as a hand loan is a possible and reasonable view on the strength of material which was brought on record. It is an admitted position that except evidence of the complainant, no other evidence was led by the applicant either in the form of any document showing that the hand loan was given to the respondent or examining witnesses to show that such amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to respondent as a hand loan. Therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment. 4. Hence, the application stands rejected. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*