IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 74 OF 2008 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 684 OF 2008 SHRI. GEKRIA ALTAF KHAN ... Applicant Versus SHRI MURGESH PANDU PILLAI ALIAS SHARIF FAKRODDIN SHAIKH AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N. K. Sawaikar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 23rd June, 2008 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. The Complainant seeks Special Leave to Appeal against the acquittal of the Accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It appears that the Complainant had purchased a truck on loan from Ashok Leyland Finance Company and subsequently the Complainant agreed to sell the said truck to the Accused for a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs, and clearing the balance due on the said loan. The learned trial Court has noted that the Complainant did not produce the said agreement and it is so. It appears that the Accused had given a blank cheque and an indemnity bond on 16-5-2004 for Rs.35,000/-. The balance sum of Rs.1,15,000/- was not paid. Ultimately, the Complainant took back the possession of the truck on 6-9-2004. The learned trial Court on the facts of the case came to the conclusion that the Complainant had failed to prove that the Accused had a liability towards the Complainant in the sum of Rs.98,652/-. In case the Complainant had himself taken over the possession of the truck on 6-9-2004, it is but obvious that the Complainant had failed to prove that there was any liability to be met by the Accused on account of the blank cheque earlier given. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Complainant submits that the Accused had not replied to the statutory notice issued by the Complainant to the Accused and has placed reliance on an unreported Judgment of this Court in Hemant Pavel Gracias v. Socorro Santan Fernandes(2008(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 117). The fact that the notice was not replied can be considered only as one of the circumstance against the Accused but that certainly cannot preclude the Complainant to prove that the cheque was issued in payment of a subsisting debt or liability. Considering the facts of the case, the view held by the learned trial Court cannot be faulted. Hence, it requires no interference. This is not a fit case to grant Special Leave to Appeal. Application rejected. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.