24-alp-176-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 176 OF 2019 (Leave to file appeal) Ambuja Cements Limited … Applicant vs. Anil Mehra and Anr … Respondents Mr. Srinivas Deshmukh i/b. Juris Corp for the Applicant Ms. Vasudha Gupta i/b. YNA Legal for Respondent. Mr. D.J. Haldankar, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 4th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This application is filed under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.PC’), by the original complainant seeking leave to file an appeal against the order passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant had supplied cement to the accused on the assurance of regular payment as per the terms and policies of the complainant. Page no. 1 of 4 varsha 24-alp-176-2019.doc According to the complainant, the cement was supplied from 19th December 2009. Thereafter, further supply was made from time to time, and as per the accounts maintained by the complainant, a total amount of Rs.1,53,18,297/- was due and payable. The dishonoured cheques were issued towards payment of the total outstanding amount towards the cement supplied by the complainant from time to time. Hence, the demand notice was issued. The demand notice was served upon the accused, and he had also replied to the demand notice. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant proved foundational facts and thus, the presumption under Sections 119 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should have been accepted by the trial court. He submits that when the presumption is established, the burden was upon the accused to lead evidence to rebut the presumption. He submits that, except for issuing a reply stating that the cheques were issued towards the security and the amount as claimed in the cheque was not due and payable, no evidence is led by the accused to rebut the presumption. The complainant’s allegations are proved by supporting oral evidence. Hence, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the trial court should have convicted the accused based Page no. 2 of 4 24-alp-176-2019.doc on the presumption in favour of the complainant. He therefore submits that leave to file an appeal be granted to the complainant. 4. I have perused the papers of the application. The complainant’s claim is that the total amount as reflected on the cheque was due and payable for the goods, i.e., the cement supplied to the accused. In the reply filed by the accused, he has stated that the cement was supplied worth Rs. 47,11,101/- from June 2014 to July 2014, and the accused had paid an amount of Rs. 50,98,000/-. The accused has further stated that the accounts were never settled and finalised, and the complainant presented the cheque given towards security without settling the accounts. 5. The trial court has examined the oral evidence led by the complainant. The admissions made by the complainant’s witness during cross-examination, that he had no personal knowledge of the transaction and the deposition was based on documents and feedback from his office, were considered by the trial court. The complainant’s witness in the cross-examination stated that no invoices, ledger accounts, any correspondence for payment and delivery receipts were filed on record. Hence, considering the admissions given by the complainant’s witness and insufficient evidence on record, the trial court found that the defence raised by Page no. 3 of 4 24-alp-176-2019.doc the accused was probable that the cheque issued towards security was encashed by the complainant without settlement of account. 6. 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 reappreciation 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. 7. The application is dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 4 of 4