1 APPLN-2770.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2770 OF 2010 Shree Ramanjaneya Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd. .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Shri J.K. Hegde for the Applicant. Shri S.A. Shaikh, APP, for the State. Ms Jyoti Menon i/b Shri M. Janardhanan for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JUNE 07, 2011 P.C: This is an application for leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai. The applicant claims to have received three cheques from the respondent-accused towards loan of Rs.50,000/- taken by the accused in the year 2000. The cheques were dated 25-6-2005, 25-7-2005 and 25-8-2005. The first cheque dated 25-6-2005 had been encashed by the applicant. Thereafter, the respondent gave a notice on 25-7-2005 stating that the accused was forced 2 APPLN-2770.10 to write those cheques on 16-6-2005 and that nothing was due or payable. Without replying to this notice and without referring to this notice after dishonour of cheque, neither notice of demand was made nor the party had complained. The complaint also does not refer to this notice. Even in the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, there is no reference to receipt of this notice. In the cross-examination, the first response of Shri Harish Narayan Shetty was that the accused had not at all issued any notice on 25-7-2005. Only later did he accept that he received the notice by R.P.A.D.. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the notice was addressed to Shri Jayant Shetty and not to Shri Harish Narayan Shetty, who was the complainant on behalf of the company. This does not make any difference. It would be hard to conceive that a person would agree to pay a sum of Rs.70,800/- when a notice was already issued by him on 25-7-2005, which was suppressed by the complainant. The view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference. Leave refused. Appeal is dismissed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)