1 (907) Appln 1054/07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1054 OF 2007 M/s. Sai Drishti Enterprises .. Applicant Vs. M/s. Excel Ice Service & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Dharam Sharma i/b M/s. Dharam & Co. for the Applicant. Mr. Sanjeev Kadam for Respondent No.2. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh for the Respondent State. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 3rd May, 2011. P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file Appeal against the order of acquittal for Criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Complainant and the accused are traders trading in paper meant for packaging of the supply of the goods to various parties. Three orders were placed by the accused upon the Complainant. Pursuant to the first order an invoice was raised on 6th September, 1999 bearing No. 11599/2000 for Rs.1,44,938/- for the price of goods sold. A Cheque for Rs.1,44,938/- was issued on 09.10.1999 after the supply was effected. That cheque came to be dishonoured on 20.03.2000. 2. Parties have also corresponded with regard to that supply on 13.10.1999. The supplier of the complainant who informed about the complaint of inferior goods called for inspection of the goods on 21.09.1999. 2 (907) Appln 1054/07 The Complainant wrote to the accused to make arrangement for inspection. The inspection is not shown to be arranged for. On 05.11.1999 the accused replied to two letters of the Complainant as well as the Complainant's supplier alleging inferior goods supplied. This reference to the order dated 10th September, 1999. The goods were supplied prior to 10th September, 1999. This, therefore, does not relate to the order for the goods supplied on 6th September, 1999. 3. Two other consignments were supplied later under the order dated 10th September, 2000. These were on 18th September, 1999 and 20th September, 1999 under invoice dated 116 & 117. The Complainant does not relate to these consignments or the goods supplied thereunder though reference is made to Bill No.115. 4. Letter of the accused dated 5th November, 1999 which is with regard to later supply has been replied on 27th March, 2000. The Complainant has reminded the accused of the inspection which was arranged for which was not done. 5. This correspondence shows the allegations made of inferior supply but not substantiated. Under the further orders which were placed also goods were supplied and have been received. 6. Dishonour of cheque is for the exact amount of the invoice. Hence no part of the invoice has been paid though the goods were not returned nor offered for inspection. 3 (907) Appln 1054/07 7. Consequently the order of acquittal requires reconsideration. Leave to Appeal is granted. Appeal to come up for admission on 23rd June, 2011. The Record and Proceedings have also been called. Hence the Appeal shall be taken up for hearing at the stage of admission. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)