1 A IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.572 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 Kamlakar Shantaram Naik .. Applicant V/s. Subhash D.Shetty .. Respondents Mr.Anas Shaikh i/b.Mr.Jamila Shaikh for the Applicant. Mr.Kishor Bhatia for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.V.Nikam, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : JUNE 29th, 2009. P.C. It is the application to file leave against the acquittal of Respondent No.1 original accused in the matter of offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. During the arguments, learned Advocate Mr.Shaikh for the applicant submits that the acquittal of the Respondent accused is erroneous and not sustainable in law in as much as the cheque for Rs.7 2 lakhs given by the accused was bounced not for the reason of any change in signatures of the account holder. Counter to this arguments, it is strongly argued on behalf of the Respondent accused that the very foundation of the case of the complainant as to there was a partnership between the parties and that there were dues to be payable to the complainant on dissolution of such partnership, fails for the simple reason that there is no any partnership deed or deed of dissolution of partnership brought on record. Though, much reliance was placed on article “A”, a document dated 8th December, 2003 on the basis for showing existence of business transactions and of partnership between the parties, there is nothing in the said document even remotely to consider that it is concerning some partnership existing between the complainant and the accused. None of the clauses in the said document speak of any terms and conditions of the partnership between parties. Admittedly, said documents do not bear the signature of the complainant as alleged partner. On the contrary, it appears to be the documents having the signatures of accused as the owner of the establishment and also the signature of Rajesh Shety, Manager of accused and also bear signatures of two witnesses. Not believing the said document as any sort of understanding between the complainant and the accused to run the business of the hotel, trial Magistrate came to the conclusion of failure of the case of the complainant intrinsically in as much as the very foundation of the allegations of the complainant appeared to be false. Moreover, it appears that there is a criminal complaint lodged by the accused regarding threats given to him by his 3 Manager for recovery of some dues for working in the hotel. 3. Considering the material produced before the court and considering the reasoning given by the Trial Magistrate, in the opinion of this Court, here it is not a matter in which leave can be granted so as to again re-agitate the matter in the appeal and hence, the present leave petition is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)