..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1725 OF 2008 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 Mr.Imran Ahmed Rafiq Ahmed. ..Applicant. Versus Sayyed Munir Navab & Anr. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Rajendra Rathod, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for Respondent No.2-State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 9th June, 2008. DATED : 9th June, 2008. DATED : 9th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in C.C.No.264/SS/2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent No.1-orig.accused of the offence under Section of 138 of N.I.Act. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was working with the accused and that the accused is ..(2).. the proprietor of M/s.Navabsons Shock Express. The complainant was working with the accused from 1993 to December 2005 as a Salesman on payment of salary. The case of the complainant is that he was also working on commission basis and the accused gave him Rs.20/- per piece for every order which was brought by the complainant for the accused. It is alleged by the complainant that the accused did not pay him his full salary nor full commission and went on promising to pay the same in future. On 30.12.2005 the complainant met with an accident while on duty. On the next day i.e. on 31.12.2005 the accused calculated the total dues of the complainant and terminated his services. It is alleged that towards the full and final settlement of the dues of the complainant, the accused had issued two post dated cheques of Rs.10 Lakhs each in favour of the complainant. As the cheques were dishonoured, complaint came to be filed. 3. The accused has denied that he was the proprietor of M/s. Navabsons Shock Express. No documentary evidence has been brought on record to ..(3).. show that the accused was the proprietor of M/s.Navabsons Shock Express, hence, it is difficult to hold that the accused owed the complainant money. 4. In the complaint, the complainant has not stated what was his salary. In the affidavit for the first time he has stated that he was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. From the evidence on record, it is seen that the complainant used to get salary of Rs.1500/- per month initially and thereafter his salary increased to Rs.4500/- per month. From 1999 to 2005 he was getting salary of Rs.4500/-. The services of the complainant were terminated on 31.12.2005. If the complainant was getting salary of Rs.1500/- from 1993 to 1999, and from 1999 to December 2005 at the rate of Rs.4500/- or even Rs.5000/- as contended by the complainant, the amount does not work-out to Rs.20 Lakhs. In the cross-examination of the complainant, it was come on record that the expenses of the hospital which according to him the accused was liable to pay was Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Even after adding this amount to the ..(4).. above salary amount, it does not come to Rs.20 Lakhs. 5. It is further the case of the complainant that he was to get commission for the orders brought by him and the accused had to pay the balance amount of commission and hence the total of Rs.20 Lakhs was reached. In his evidence, the complainant has stated that one DW-3 Rafique Bhai who runs a shop in the name of Cardial in Goa gave him many orders which the complainant in turn placed with the accused. He has also named one DW-4 Laxmanbhai who is running a business in Jaipur who had similarly placed orders with the complainant who in turn placed the same with the accused. Both these persons are examined as witnesses. Both of them have denied placing any orders with the complainant. The complainant has failed to examine any other witness to show that they had placed any orders with the present complainant which the complainant in turn placed with accused. 6. It is pertinent to point out that the ..(5).. complainant has admitted that the accused had paid the amount of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- to him at the time of the marriage of the sister of the complainant. The case of the accused on the other hand is that the complainant was working with his brother. The brother of the accused called for some cheques for which he sent the complainant. As the complainant did not remember the exact amount for which cheques was to be issued the complainant asked for blank cheques which were given by the accused to the complainant. Looking to the entire evidence on record, the defence take by the accused appears to be probable. So also looking to the evidence on record, it is clear that no legally enforceable liability in the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs arose. 7. Looking to the evidence on record,I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. ..(6).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)