1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.APPA 74 OF 2010. NARHARI DEORAO KADAM VS SHEILESH ARUN MAHAJAN ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R. J. Mirza, Advocate for the appellant. Coram : A.H. JOSHI, J. Date : 1st April, 2010. 1. The acquittal is based on the finding recorded at para 18 in the impugned judgment which reads as follows: “18. In view of reasonings and findings given by me in the above paras the complainant has failed to establish that, he is authorized agent of the partnership firm namely Nivara Developer apart from being just a partner. Secondly, the complainant has also failed to prove that, the accused has issued disputed cheque to him for discharge of legally enforceable liability. Therefore, though the accused has failed to establish the sufficient reason for stoppage of payment by him in my view complainant has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Moreover, as the complainant is neither the payee of the disputed cheque, holder in due course nor the authorized person appointed on behalf 2 of the payee Nivara Developers, I am of the opinion that, the complainant is having no locus to file the present complaint.” [Quoted from page 18 of Criminal Application Paper Book] These findings are not shown to be erroneous. The complainant is a total stranger to the cheque. 2. No interference is called for. 3. Appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Judge |mule|