..(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.396 of 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 Mr.Suraj Prakash Khanna. ..Applicant. Versus Mr.G.P.Shah & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Shriniwas S. Patwardhan, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.Milind Deshmukh, Adv. for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 21st April, 2008. DATED : 21st April, 2008. DATED : 21st April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2005 passed by the learned IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge set-aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned C.J.M., Nashik in Criminal Case No.8650 of 2002, whereby the learned C.J.M. had convicted the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant-Orig.complainant and the learned Advocate for respondent No.1-orig.accused. ..(2).. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as evidence in the present case. 3. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent-accused mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the complainant could not prove that the cheque was issued in respect of any legal liability. According to the complainant, the cheque was given in discharge of legal liability in respect of outstanding hand-loan of Rs.3,50,000/- and interest thereon. According to the complainant, the amount advanced by him by way of handloan to the respondent-accused was Rs.9 lacs. The accused repaid the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- out of Rs.9 lacs and cheque was issued in respect of the remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and interest thereon of Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. According to the complainant the amount of Rs.9 lacs was paid by him to the respondent-accused through three cheques and out of the said three cheques, two cheques were in the name of Sayee Enterprises. It is an admitted fact that the cheques were not given in the name of the respondent-accused. The complainant has not ..(3).. produced the record of the third cheque. The two cheques which have been produced by the complainant reveal that the amount was paid to the Sayee Enterprises. In his deposition, the complainant has admitted that he is unaware whether the respondent-accused is a proprietor or partner of the Sayee Enterprises. The complainant has also deposed that he does not know for what purpose he has paid the amount. He has further deposed that he is not a money lender and that he gave the said amount to the accused without creating any written instrument of the said transaction. It is an admitted fact that there is no written agreement between the complainant and the accused in respect of the period of repayment of the money. In the present case, there is a financial transaction of huge amount. Financial transactions of lacs of rupees are not done unless the transactions are secured by an agreement of mortgage or pledge. The complainant in his evidence has not thrown any light on the factor about what had compelled to him to give such a huge amount to the accused without any agreement or security. It is not brought on record that the accused is a relative or a very close friend or he has any business transactions with the complainant. The documents produced by the ..(4).. complainant reveal that money transaction was between the complainant and a business concern i.e. M/s.Sayee Enterprises. The complainant has not brought on record how the respondent-accused is connected with Sayee Enterprises. Thus, looking to the evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that there is no material to show that the respondent-accused was under any legal liability to pay the amount to the complainant. 5. Besides the above facts, it is seen that the complainant does not really sure about the total outstanding amount as on 15th August, 2002. The learned Sessions Judge has also observed that the complaint, as filed, is beyond limitation. It is on these grounds that the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 6. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. No case is made out for interference. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. ..(5).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)