1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 493 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2011 ( Chandrashekhar Vishwanath Mudliar Vs. M. R. Rashid & Ano. ) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri Y. V. Nayyar Adv for applicant. None for the respondent no.1 Shri N. R. Rode APP for non applicant/State. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. DATED: 21st JULY, 2011. . Heard. Appellant was the original complainant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case No. 4204 of 2008. On 10.10.2007 respondent no.1 had issued a cheque of an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- to the appellant. It was presented to the bank thrice. All the times it was dishonored. In para 9 of the judgment learned Magistrate observed that the appellant and the respondent no.1 were known to each other. The appellant had given cash amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- to the respondent no.1. It was meant for purchasing a flat for a consideration of Rs. 5 lac. For one or the other reason the deal could not be materialized. Instead of refunding this amount, 2 respondent no.1 issued a cheque. Respondent no.1 put forth the defence that blank cheque was given to the appellant by way of security. After making reference to the evidence adduced by the complainant, learned Magistrate observed that presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises in favour of the appellant. In para 10 the learned Magistrate also observed that the respondent no.1 neither examined himself nor any witness in his defence. Despite this, learned Magistrate found fault with the case of the appellant that while lending an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- no contemporary document was got executed from the respondent no.1. After observing that an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- being an unaccounted sum, learned Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the complaint. It is, therefore, obvious that arguable points are involved in this appeal. Hence, leave as prayed for is granted. APPEAL: Admit. Action under Section 390 Criminal Procedure Code. Bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5000/- be issued returnable after eight weeks. JUDGE svk 3 From the date of taking charge i.e. from 17.03.2011 till 06.05.2011 His Lordship Hon'ble Shri Justice M.N. Gilani was sitting at High Court Bombay.