10-11-12-alp-42-2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2017 (Leave to file appeal) WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2017 (Leave to file appeal) WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2017 (Leave to file appeal) Rashi Peripherals Pvt Ltd … Applicant vs. Jaina Enterprises and Ors … Respondents Mr. Viral Rathod a/w. Ms. Ishita Shah i/b. Mr. Kiran Mohite and Ms. Ishita Shah for the Applicant Mr. D.J. Haldankar, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 4th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. These applications are filed under section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr. PC’) by the original complainant to challenge the orders passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting respondent nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant filed three separate complaints alleging that the Page no. 1 of 6 varsha 10-11-12-alp-42-2017.doc cheques issued by respondent nos. 1 and 2 towards payment against five different invoices were dishonoured. Hence, three separate complaints were filed. Since the parties in all three complaints and the basic facts regarding the claim of the complainant are the same pertaining to five different invoices, all the applications are decided by this common order. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that different invoices were raised for the goods supplied by the complainant, against which the cheques were issued. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, as per the terms of payment in the invoices, a credit of 15 days was given to the accused. Invoices referred to the post-dated cheques for the payment towards the goods delivered. He relies upon the acknowledgement of the invoices to support the complainant’s case that the goods were delivered and therefore the post- dated cheques issued by the accused were deposited towards payment for the goods that were delivered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant’s authorised representative was examined in support of the complainant. Copies of the invoices were Page no. 2 of 6 10-11-12-alp-42-2017.doc produced on record, which referred to the acknowledgement regarding the delivery of goods. He points out the findings recorded by the trial court regarding the initial presumption in favour of the complainant in view of the cheques issued by the accused. However, the trial court has acquitted the accused on the ground that sufficient evidence was not produced regarding the actual delivery of the goods. He points out the supporting evidence and the copies of the invoice-cum-delivery challans produced on record. He further submits that one of the grounds for acquitting the respondent is disbelieving the authority of the authorised person who had filed the complaints and the person who led evidence, on the ground that the original resolution of the complainant was not produced on record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of arguments, the applicant had filed an application for producing the original copy of the resolution, which was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that there was sufficient evidence produced on record to show the authorisation of the person who had filed the complaint and led evidence, and also sufficient evidence was on record to support Page no. 3 of 6 10-11-12-alp-42-2017.doc the complainant’s case that the cheques were deposited for recovery of the amount towards the invoices, which also recorded that the goods were delivered. He therefore submits that the applicant be granted leave to file appeals against the orders of acquittal. 5. I have perused the papers of the application and the supporting evidence produced on record by way of additional compilation. The delivery invoices referred to a handwritten acknowledgement, which is relied upon by the complainant to support the contentions that the cheques were issued towards the goods supplied as per the invoices and the receipt of acknowledgement by the servant of the accused on the delivery of the challan. The trial court has disbelieved the acknowledgment on the invoices on the ground that the original acknowledgment is not produced on record, and the evidence is not sufficient to accept the complainant’s case that the goods were actually delivered. The complainant’s case regarding invoices submitted in the form of a carbon copy, as the original copy was with the accused, was also considered by the trial court while examining the evidence on record. Page no. 4 of 6 10-11-12-alp-42-2017.doc 6. The admissions given by the complainant’s witness in his cross-examination are referred to by the learned judge to hold that the evidence was not sufficient to support the complainant’s case that the dishonoured cheques were towards the goods supplied as per the invoices-cum-delivery challans relied upon by the complainant. The trial court has also referred to the blank spaces in the invoice pertaining to the column of the customer purchase order number and purchase date. Hence, considering the documentary evidence and admissions given by the authorised representative of the complainant during his cross-examination, the trial court held that the guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as there was no adequate evidence to show that the goods were actually supplied and the cheque amount was due and payable towards the actual delivery of the goods. 7. A perusal of the documentary evidence, as well as the oral evidence and the admissions given in the cross- examination, does not reveal that the goods were actually supplied to the accused, and the amounts as per the dishonoured cheques were due and payable. Page no. 5 of 6 10-11-12-alp-42-2017.doc 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 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. 9. The Applications are therefore dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 6 of 6