1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.2736 of 2007 (Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Hinganghat, through Manager v. Abdul Arif Abdul Subhan Qureshi) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri Apurv De, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : A.H. Joshi, J. DATE : 10th July, 2008 1. The learned Trial Judge has recorded a finding in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment, which reads as follows : “In the case before me, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence in respect of the loan so also legal dealings. Even not provide those fact, and not even mentioned in Exh.1. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the cheque given the accused was dishonoured and the accused has committed offence under Section 138. Unless the complainant proves the fact of dealings, ingredients of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will not be proved. The complainant has to prove his own case at his own. But by examining the witness clerk on behalf of the complainant, it will not be proper to say that the complainant has proved its case. Under such circumstances, the decision cited by the complainant will not be 2 applicable to this case and the decision cited by the accused can be applicable to the present case.” 2. The above-quoted finding is not shown to be incorrect, perverse or contrary to record. In the above premises, the applicant has failed to make out case for indulgence. 3. The application is rejected. JUDGE pdl