901-ALP-292-2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 292 OF 2017 M/s. Varun Enterprises through its … Applicant Prop. Vidya Vasudeo Sahasrabuddhe vs. Nalini Shilimkar Prop. Of M/s. … Respondents Sai Electronics and Another Mr.Viresh V. Purwant a/w. Mr.Suraj Y. Gadkari for the Applicant. Mr. D.J. Haldankar, APP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 7th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This application is filed under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the original complainant for leave to file appeal against order passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting respondent no. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that goods were supplied to the accused from time to time and the complainant raised invoices towards the material supplied. As 1/4 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2025.11.12 14:56:45 +0530 901-ALP-292-2017.doc per the ledger account maintainable by the complainant an amount of Rs. 4,87,851/- was due and payable against which two cheques of Rs.2,50,000/- each were issued by the accused. He submits that the cheque amounts included the amount of interest on the delayed payment. He further points out that since issuance of cheque is not disputed, the presumption under Section 118 and 139 would be applicable in favour of the complainant, as no rebuttal evidence is led by the accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore submits that since the presumption is not rebutted by leading any evidence, the accused should have been held guilty for the offence. Hence, leave to file appeal be granted to the applicant. 4. I have perused the papers of the application. The two cheques issued are for a total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as against the amount due and payable, according to the complainant towards the invoices raised for supply of material. The difference in the amount due and payable and the cheque amount is explained by the complainant that the additional amount was towards interest for the delayed payment. The 2/4 901-ALP-292-2017.doc delivery challans and the invoices produced on record by the complainant are examined by the trial court. In view of the admission in the cross-examination by the complainant that the material and the amount in few of the invoices were same, with reference to the entries of payments made, would show that the amount towards the material supplied were paid by the accused. 5. For want of any particulars regarding the transaction, the trial court accepted the defence of the accused that the cheques issued towards security were deposited by the complainant, though no amount was due and payable. The complainant has admitted in the cross-examination that the cheques were issued towards security. 6. Thus, in view of the admission given in the cross-examination regarding the cheques issued towards security and the admission given regarding receipt of the amount by cheque and cash towards the invoices relied upon by the complainant, the trial court held that the defence raised by the accused was a probable defence, that the dishonoured cheques were the blank cheques issued by way of security and 3/4 901-ALP-292-2017.doc the same were not towards any legally enforceable liability. 7. In view of the admission given in the cross-examination the trial court has accepted defence as a probable defence as it raises doubts on the contentions raised by the complainant, that the amount as per ledger account maintained by the complainant were due and payable. Thus, in view of the doubt created about the probability of the case alleged by the complainant, the trial court refused to accept the complainant’s contention that the cheques were issued towards any legally enforceable liability. 8. Considering the evidence on record, the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view that could have been taken based on the evidence on record. There can be interference in an appeal against acquittal if, after re-appreciation of evidence, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present case, there is no ground for granting leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal. 9. The Application is rejected. (GAURI GODSE, J.) 4/4