1 Cri-A-494-06.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 494 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 Western India Reginoal Council For Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India. .. Appellant Vs. Ramesh M. Joshi .. Respondent Mr. S.V.Kotwal i/b. M.S.Mohite,Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Vikas Kapile i/b. Smt. Shilpa G.Joshi,Advocate for the respondent No.1. Smt. V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 16th March, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant, who is original complainant has filed this application seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal under Sec,. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The accused was an elected member of the complainant Council. 2 Cri-A-494-06.sxw According to prosecution, he had taken amount of Rs.10,000/- as an advance for meeting the expenses of the meeting which was to be held in Kolhapur. According to he complainant, the accused did not submit account for the said advance inspite of repeated letters. Finally, on 31.3.2004, the accused issued a cheque for amount of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the complainant along with a letter whereby the accused asked the complainant to settle his dues about the expenses made by him. Admittedly, he had also requested that the cheque be not presented to Bank for encashment till his claim about the amount spent by him was settled. Inspite of this, the cheue was presented and was returned dishonoured. Therefore, the complaint was filed. 4. The trial Court noted that as per the admission of PW-1 Unnikrishnan, who was Senior Executive Assistant of the complaint, there were vouchers of Rs.14,638/-. According to him, the accused had taken away the amount and also the vouchers with him. Thus, the complainant does not have any document to show that amount of Rs.14,638/- was in fact paid by the complainant to the accused towards his claim on account of expenses of the meeting. It is material to note that according to the complainant, the accused had taken advance of Rs.10,000/- for expenses but he had not given account of that amount. It indicates that complete amount of Rs.10,000/- might not be due from the accused 3 Cri-A-494-06.sxw to the complainant because the accused must have spent certain amount towards the expenses of the meeting. The accused gave the cheque of rs.10,000/- to return the amount of advance which he had taken but at the same time, he requested the complainant to settle his dues as per the vouchers. It appears that there were certain mistakes in the vouchers and therefore accounts were not settled. If the plea of the accused and the admission of PW-1 Unnikrishnan are taken into consideration, it is possible that amount due to the accused from the complainant might be more than the amount due to the complainant for which that cheque was issued. In view of these circumstances, the trial Court came to conclusion that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt or liability. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I do not see any valid reason to grant leave to prefer the appeal. 5. The Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)