13-ALP-222-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (PVT.) NO. 222 OF 2019 Bishwanathi Mahavir Poddar … Applicant Vs. The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Lalit Jain for the Applicant. Smt. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 14th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This application is filed under Section 378(4) of Criminal Procedure Code by the original complainant for seeking leave to file an appeal to challenge the order passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting respondent no.1 from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cheque was issued by the respondent towards the goods supplied by the complainant. The cheque was issued from the account of the proprietory concern of the accused. The demand notice was replied by the accused by admitting that the cheque was issued from the Page no. 1 of 5 MJ Jadhav MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Digitally signed by MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Date: 2025.11.26 13:56:22 +0530 13-ALP-222-2019.doc account of the proprietory concern. However, at the time of trial, the accused raised a false defence that the cheque was issued from the account of the partnership firm and thus, the accused cannot be prosecuted in the absence of the partnership firm being made a party. He further points out that when the demand notice was replied, the accused did not raise any grievance that there was delay in delivering all the goods that caused any damage or loss to the accused. The contents of the reply would support the complainant’s allegation that despite supplying the goods and the amounts becoming due and payable the cheques issued for payment of the goods supplied were dishonored. The complainant produced on record the copies of the invoice to support the contention of the complainant that the goods were supplied. Even otherwise, the accused has not disputed receipt of the goods and he has raised a defence that the goods were supplied late and therefore, there was damage and loss caused to the accused. He submits that the trial Court has wrongly accepted the contention of the accused that the cheques were issued from the account of partnership firm, in the absence of any supporting evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the oral evidence of the complainant and the admissions given by the accused in his cross-examination. He submits that once the Page no. 2 of 5 13-ALP-222-2019.doc issuance of cheque was admitted and the amount due and payable was also admitted in the reply to the demand notice, the presumption under Section 119 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was in favour of the complainant and there was no sufficient evidence produced by the accused to rebut the presumption. He submits that the defence raised by the accused that there was a settlement talk, would also support the allegations that the amounts were due and payable and the cheques were issued towards the legally enforceable liability. He therefore submits that the applicant be granted leave to file an appeal. 4. I have perused the evidence produced on record by way of an additional compilation. The demand notice was replied by the accused by raising a grievance that though, the amount had become due and payable as per the invoice, the goods were delivered late which had caused loss to the accused. It was contended that five signed cheques were issued only towards security with a clear understanding that the same should not be deposited without confirmation from the accused. To support such a defence the accused has examined himself. In the cross- examination, the accused has maintained his stand that the cheques were issued for security purpose and the amounts, name and dates were not written while handing over the cheques to the Page no. 3 of 5 13-ALP-222-2019.doc complainant as they were issued only for security purpose. In the cross-examination of the complainant, he has admitted that there was a correspondence between the complainant and the accused regarding settlement. Though, the complainant has denied the suggestion that due delay in supply of goods, the accused had suffered loss, he has admitted that blank cheques were issued to the complainant. He further states in the cross-examination that as the accused had ensured to arrange the funds, he deposited the cheques. Considering the admissions given by the complainant in his cross-examination and the evidence led by the accused, the trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. The documentary and the oral evidence is considered by the trial Court to accept the defence raised by the accused as a probable one. Though, the trial Court has accepted the defence that the cheques were issued from the account of the partnership firm and that the complaint was not filed against the partnership firm, the order of acquittal is not only on that ground. The trial Court has also considered the evidence to disbelieve that the dishonored cheques were towards any legally enforceable liability. The admissions given by the complainant that blank cheques were issued to him also needs to be considered as a crucial aspect that raises doubt on the Page no. 4 of 5 13-ALP-222-2019.doc case of the complainant. 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, therefore, dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 5 of 5