25-ALP-170-2018.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 170 OF 2018 Rohidas Dnyandeo Satpute … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondents and Another Mr. Vivek Patil a/w. Mr. Afsar Ansari for the Applicant. Ms. Kavita P. Shinde i/b. Mr. A. B. Tajane for Respondent No.2. Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 19th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER : 1. This application is filed under Section 378(4) of the 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. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had time and again advanced loan amounts to the 1/6 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2025.11.29 16:20:04 +0530 25-ALP-170-2018.docx accused for a total sum of Rs. 23,25,000/-. For the part repayment, the accused had paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. For the balance payment, a cheque of Rs. 18,00,000/- was issued. Since the said cheque was dishonoured, a demand notice was issued, and since there was no compliance, the present complaint was filed. The demand notice was not complied with, hence the complaint was filed. He submits that the issuance of the cheque and the amounts advanced to the accused are not in dispute. Hence, the presumptions under Sections 119 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are in favour of the complainant. No rebuttal evidence has been produced by the accused. Hence, in view of the presumption, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused had issued two cheques of Rs. 8,00,000/- each, which were also dishonoured. Hence, the notice dated 3rd June 2014 was issued. Thereafter, the accused had repaid the same. However, thereafter, the complainant had disbursed a further amount to the accused. Hence, the balance amount from the earlier disbursement, in addition to 2/6 25-ALP-170-2018.docx the further disbursement, made a total amount of Rs . 23,25,000/- due and payable. To support the allegations, the complainant produced on record a bank statement at Exhibit 53 to show that amounts were disbursed to the accused. He therefore submits that there was sufficient evidence on record to support the allegations that the dishonoured cheque was towards a legally enforceable debt. However, the trial court has not correctly appreciated evidence recording the partial repayment and the further amounts disbursed by the complainant. Hence, by misappreciating the evidence regarding repayment and the further disbursement, which show that a total amount of Rs. 23,25,000/-was due and payable, the trial court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the amounts were repaid and the complainant failed to show that the total amount of Rs. 23,25,000/- was disbursed by way of advance as alleged by the complainant. He therefore submits that there is substantial evidence on record to support the legally enforceable debt. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the presumption needs to be accepted in favour of the complainant, and the accused would be liable to be convicted. 3/6 25-ALP-170-2018.docx 4. I have perused the evidence on record. During cross- examination, suggestions are put to the complainant regarding the amount of Rs. 11,80,000/- repaid to the complainant after the notice dated 3rd June 2014 (Exhibit 33). In response to the suggestion, the complainant has admitted to having received an amount of Rs. 11,80,000/- from the accused, and the balance due and payable is only the amount of Rs.4,25,000/- In the further cross-examination, the accused has raised a defence of repayment of certain other amounts by way of pay order and demand draft. 5. A perusal of the demand notice for initiating criminal action and the contents of the complaint and the oral evidence does not reflect the repayment of Rs. 11,80,000/- as admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination. Considering the admissions made by the complainant during his cross-examination, the trial court held that the demand of Rs. 16,00,000/- as per Exhibit-33 and the repayment of Rs. 11,80,000/- show that the cheque amount was not due and payable. Thus, the learned trial judge has referred to the contents of the present demand notice and observed that it was for the remaining amount of Rs. 4,25,000/-. 4/6 25-ALP-170-2018.docx 6. The present complaint is filed for dishonour of the cheque for Rs. 18,00,000/-. In the demand notice, the complainant stated that, except for the amount of Rs. 18,00,000/-, the amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- was due and payable. However, neither the demand notice, nor the complainant, nor the complainant's examination-in-chief explains the amount of Rs. 11,80,000/- admittedly received by the complainant after the issuance of the demand notice at Exhibit-33. Hence, considering the documentary evidence on record and the admissions made during cross- examination, the trial court held that the defence raised by the accused is a probable one. Hence, the dishonoured cheque would not amount to having been issued for a legally enforceable debt. 7. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the complainant has nowhere explained the amount of Rs. 11,80,000/- received by him after the demand notice dated 3rd June 2014 produced at Exhibit-33. I have also perused the admissions given in the cross-examination and the statements relied upon by the accused at Exhibit-53. The view taken by the trial court is a possible view that the dishonoured cheque 5/6 25-ALP-170-2018.docx was not for any legally enforceable liability, and the accused has raised a probable defence. The admission of the complainant regarding receipt of Rs.11,80,000/- is a crucial admission which is not explained in the complaint or the oral evidence. 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 Application is rejected. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 6/6