18-ALP-347-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (PVT.) NO. 347 OF 2019 Bhaskar Ganpat Dumbre … Applicant Vs. Jayashree Shashikant Kamble And Anr. … Respondents Mr. Ashish J. Dubey i/b A. K. Dubey for the Applicant. Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 13th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This application is filed under Section 378(4) of Criminal Procedure Code filed by the original complainant for 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 paid part payment towards transfer of a shop belonging to the accused. Since the transaction was not completed, the accused had agreed to return the earnest amount and had Page no. 1 of 4 MJ Jadhav MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Digitally signed by MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Date: 2025.11.25 15:05:36 +0530 18-ALP-347-2019.doc issued cheque in discharge of the said liability. Since the cheque was dishonored, a demand notice was issued. The accused failed to reply to the demand notice. Hence, the complaint was filed. The complainant examined himself to support his allegations and also produced on record a receipt signed by the accused accepting the amount and an affidavit regarding the transaction between the parties. Though the accused examined herself to support her defence that she had accepted only an amount of Rs.1 Lakh and had repaid the amount by monthly installment she failed to produce any supporting documents. The accused examined her daughter in support of the defence but without any supporting documents. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore submits that the presumption under Sections 119 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by the accused by leading any cogent evidence. In the absence of any supporting evidence that the amount was repaid the presumption in favour of the complainant would not stand rebutted and therefore, the accused would be liable to be convicted. He submits that the trial Court has erroneously casted the burden upon the complainant to prove that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable liability, by ignoring that the accused failed to prove her defence regarding accepting only an amount of Rs.1 Lakh and monthly repayment. Page no. 2 of 4 18-ALP-347-2019.doc 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that the trial Court has unnecessarily relied upon the four other complaints filed against four separate individuals regarding dishonored cheques. He submits that other complaints filed by the complainant against different persons would not be relevant in the present case. The complainant has produced sufficient evidence to support his allegations. He therefore submits that the applicant be granted leave to file an appeal. 5. I have perused the evidence annexed to the application. Issuance of cheque is not disputed. However, the accused has raised a defence that she had accepted only an amount of Rs.1 Lakh as a loan on interest and the two blank cheques were issued towards security. She has denied her signature on the affidavit and the receipt relied upon by the complainant. The accused has denied any transaction for sale of the shop as alleged by the complainant. To support her defence regarding the loan amount and issuance of cheque by way of security she has also examined her daughter. Considering the defence raised by the accused supported by oral evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the defence raised by the accused is a probable defence. Considering the evidence on record, the allegations made by the complainant appears to be doubtful and thus, the trial Court has Page no. 3 of 4 18-ALP-347-2019.doc rightly held that the defence raised by the accused is a probable one and the guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 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. 4 of 4