[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.129 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 Hemant Thacker ..Applicant Vs. Prashant Kangutkar & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.N.K.Dayanandan Advocate for Applicant Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 17, 2008 DATE : JUNE 17, 2008 DATE : JUNE 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The applicant-original complainant has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, 50th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai in Case No.1263/SS/2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondent No.1-accused of the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had lent Rs.10 lakhs to the accused on 6.6.1999. The cheque [-2-] in question came to be issued in respect of the said loan. As the cheque was dishonoured, complaint came to be filed. 3. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned advocate for the applicant. 4. The case of the complainant is that he had lent Rs.10 lakhs to the accused on 6.6.1999. The cheque in question came to be issued in respect of the said loan. However, the said cheque was dishonoured. In his cross-examination, it is revealed that in the year 1997-98 i.e. the period when the loan was advanced by him to the accused, the income of the complainant was less than Rs.1 lakh. Even at the time of evidence, the complainant has admitted that his earning was Rs.6000/- to Rs.7000/- per month. According to the complainant, he had obtained loan from his relatives i.e. Prafulla Khandar and Surendra Khandar for paying the same to the accused. Looking to the evidence on record, it shows that the income of the complainant was just about [-3-] Rs.6000/- to Rs.7000/- per month and in the year when the loan came to be disbursed, his annual income was Rs.1 lakh, hence, it is clear that it would not have been possible for the complainant to advance an amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the accused. However, the case of the complainant is that as he did not have the amount, he borrowed the same from his relatives. It is pertinent to note that his relatives have not been examined. Nothing has been brought on record to show that his relatives had advanced any such amount either to the complainant or to the accused directly. 5. Moreover, it has been brought out in the evidence of the complainant that prior to this loan, the complainant had advanced an amount of Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs to the accused and to the brother of the accused. Cheques were given in respect of those loans to the complainant, however, those cheques bounced. Hence, complaint came to be filed by the complainant. Both the complaints came to be dismissed as the complainant was not present. The complainant has not filed any revision or appeal against the order of dismissal. If as per the case of the complainant, he had earlier lent [-4-] amount to the accused and his brother and cheques in respect of the said amounts were not honoured, it is difficult to believe that thereafter the complainant would borrow Rs.10 lakhs from his relatives to give it to the accused. No prudent man would advance loan of Rs.10 lakhs when the cheques pertaining to the earlier loans had bounced. 6. Looking to the evidence of the complainant and defence taken by the accused, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent No.1-accused. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]