( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 457 OF 2008 Ashok s/o Bapusaheb Late APPLICANT VERSUS Sanjay Haribhau Andhale and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Yuvraj V. Kakade, advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the respondent No. 2/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 29th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant is original complainant who filed private complaint case for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent No. 1, vide S.T.C. No. 3803/2005. After the trial, the respondent No. 1 came to be acquitted. 3. There is no dispute about issuance of cheque in ( 2 ) question by the respondent No. 1. His defence was that the cheque was not issued in order to discharge any existing financial liability/debt. 4. The applicant asserted that the respondent No. 1 obtained onions from him between 06-01-2005 to 08-01-2005 on credit basis. The value of the onions was Rs. 3,01,313/- and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 issued the cheque dated 07-06-2005 to discharge the debt. 5. The trial Court noticed that the respondent No. 1 is a telephone contractor. It is further held that there is absolutely no reliable evidence to show that only for three (3) days, the respondent No. 1 indulged in business of onions. The applicant admitted that the crime has been registered against the respondent No. 1 for alleged money lending business without license. According to the defence, the respondent No. 1 never dealt in business of onions, but had obtained loan of Rs. two (2) lacs from the applicant which was repaid alongwith interest. He alleged that the cheque was issued to the applicant by way of security. He produced license to show that he is telephone contractor. The applicant did not produce the account books to show that such transaction was entered into on credit basis. Considering the probability factory, the learned trial Judge accepted the defence of the respondent No. 1 and acquitted him. I do not find any substantial reason to ( 3 ) deviate from the view taken by the learned Magistrate. No special reasons appear to interfere and, as such, leave to appeal is refused. The application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN457-08