IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2011 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 3245 OF 2010 MR. CHAUDHARY SATYENDRA SINGH ... Applicant Versus MR. PRASAD KAMAT ... Respondent Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 22nd September, 2011 P.C. Heard Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Panaji, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1884. 3. Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has pointed out that the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent essentially on two grounds namely on the ground that the applicant had not established that there was a legally recoverable debt from the respondent and that the applicant was a money lender. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence adduced by the applicant which includes the receipt signed by the respondent acknowledging the receipt of the amount from the applicant as well as the cheque which was duly signed by the respondent which draws a presumption under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. On the other hand, Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently argued that there is no case made out by the applicant for granting leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Counsel points out that the whole transaction with regard to the payment of money is to M/s Mahalsa Enterprises and the respondent has no connection whatsoever with such transaction. He further pointed out that the learned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the respondent. The learned Counsel as such submitted that there is no case made out by the applicant for granting any leave. 5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the learned Magistrate has not considered the receipt produced by the applicant at Exhibit 22 which is alleged to have been signed by the respondent. On perusal of the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., I find that the respondent has not disputed that the said document was signed by him. Apart from that, prima facie, I find that the respondent has not discharged the burden to establish the circumstances in which the said cheque was issued. Prima facie there is no evidence that the applicant is a money lender. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the applicant has made out a case to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Magistrate. Hence, the application is allowed. The Registry is directed to register the appeal. 7. The above observations are only for the purpose of granting leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. 8. The application stands disposed of accordingly. F. M. REIS, J. at*