1 Cri-A-1966-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1966 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2009 Mr. Rohidas Dnyanadev Satpute ... Applicant (Orig. complainant) vs. Mr. Sadashiv Kisan Sutar & Anr. ... Respondents Mr C.K.Tripathi, Advocate, for the applicant Ms. U.V.Kejriwal, Advocate for the respondent No.2- State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 14th March, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, who is the original complainant. 2. According to him, he had given hand loan of Rs.1 lakh to the accused/respondent for repairs of the tankers and other busiess requirements. The amount was to be repaid within 2 months, but inspite of repeated demands, the accused did not repay the accused. Finally, on 17.4.2006, the accused issued a cheque in favour of the complainant against his account with Mahaagar Co-op. Bank Ltd. Branch Chandan Nagar, Pune. The cheque was presented to the said 2 Cri-A-1966-09.sxw Bank for encashment. However, on 18.4.2006, the cheque was returned by the Bank with an endorsement" RBI Directives U/s. Sec.35A". Thereafter, inspite of notice, the accused did not make payment 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that directive under Sec. 35A of RBI indicates that the account was not being operated because of certain directives given by RBI. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instrument Act mainly on the ground that the cheque was not dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account or for sufficient arrangement. If there was a prohibition order from RBI against operation of the account, that does not mean that the cheque was dshonoured due to insufficient funds in the account. The complainant had not produced any document nor had examined any witness from the Bank to show that the amount was not sufficient in the account of the accused maintained with the said Bank. Why and in what circumstances, the RBI had issued such directives is not known. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that accused had issued the cheque knowing well that the account is not being operated. If it is so, it may be a case under Sec. 420 IPC, but certainly it would not be a case under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alone and not under Sec.420 of IPC. Therefore, I do not find any 3 Cri-A-1966-09.sxw fault with the order of acquittal. 4. Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)