1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.632 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.121 OF 2008 Sameer s/o Sahebji Gouri Applicant Versus Smt.Sangita w/o Rajendra Muley Respondent Mr.Abdul Wajid A. Razzaq, advocate for the applicant. Mr.V.P.Latange, advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 07th July, 2009. P.C.: 1 Applicant – original complainant has approached this Court for the purpose of seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2 nd Court, Aurangabad in S.C.C. No.599/2007 decided on 26.12.2007. 2 Complainant presented a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Respondent – accused contending that the cheque issued by the accused for an amount of Rs. 47,999/-, drawn on Vaidyanath Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Trimurti Chowk Branch, Aurangabad, on presentation, was returned to the complainant / applicant herein with an endorsement “Exceeds arrangement”. It is contended that accused is proprietor of Shree 2 Marketing, Aurangabad and is customer of the complainant. Complainant is businessman and manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicines. He has supplied certain ayurvedic medicines to the accused and as a price thereof, cheque for aforesaid amount was issued. The complainant, after receipt of memo from the Bank in respect of dishonour of the cheque, issued notice to the accused. However, notice was returned back with an endorsement “incomplete address, cannot be traced”. The complainant thereafter proceeded to present the Complaint. 3 In response to the process, accused caused appearance and controverted the contentions raised by complainant. According to the accused, there was no transaction in respect of sale of Ayurvedic medicines. It is her contention that the cheque was issued as a matter of security for certain transaction between her husband and complainant. It is contention of the accused that her husband is Vice President of `Sankalpana Bahuuddeshiya Seva Bhavi Sanstha’ and he had agreed to hold a camp for promotion of the products belonging to the complainant in the month of August. As a security for the goods supplied for holding demonstration camp, the cheque in question was issued, which was signed by the accused. According to her, there is no legally enforceable liability or debt as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4 The trial Judge found favour with the defence raised by the accused and directed acquittal of the accused. 5 It is contended by learned Counsel appearing for the 3 complainant that in fact there was a transaction, which is enforceable in law. It is also contended that the postal endorsement is incorrect and as the notice was issued on usual address of the accused, it has to be presumed that she is properly served. 6 The trial Judge, considering all the relevant circumstances, found that the address given by the accused is not correct. Moreover, trial Court also recorded a finding that there appears to be transaction between husband of the accused and complainant and cheque was presented as security for such transaction. On consideration of the reasons recorded by the trial Court, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has adopted a reasonable view of the matter and the reasons set out on appreciation of evidence appear to be logical. Merely because some other view is also possible in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not a ground for causing interference in the order of acquittal. There is no force in the appeal. 7 Application seeking leave to file appeal, therefore, stands rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/criappln63208