SUBHASH MADHAVRAO BARAVKAR Vs. DADASAHEB HAUSRAO KHEDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocates for respective parties.

(2.) BY this application applicant original complainant seeks leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal. This applicant had filed complaint against the respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The complainant came with a case that he has advanced loan of Rs.90,000/- to the accused and for its repayment accused issued cheque dated 1/8/01. Said cheque came to be presented in the bank on 7/8/01 but it was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Thereafter, demand notice came to be issued on 9/10/01. Accused received it on 16/10/01 but amount is not paid, hence complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of the Act has been filed by this applicant against accused. At the trial complainant examined himself and 2 more witnesses-bank employees. The accused came with a defence that there was no transaction between him and the complainant but the accused had transaction with Sunita Bankatrao Barawkar who is wife of complainant's brother. He has stated that he had borrowed loan from Sunita in 1997 for which he had also executed a conditional sale deed in her favour. She had agreed to reconvey the property on payment of the loan amount. At the time of advance of loan blank cheque was also obtained from accused by Sunita. At the time of execution of sale deed, she gave in writing that cheque is misplaced and she will not misuse the same. In support of his defence accused placed on record the receipt executed by Sunita at Exh.74. After considering this evidence, the learned Magistrate accepted the defence of the accused and the accused came to be acquitted. The original complainant intends to challenge the said acquittal, hence by this application prayed for leave to prefer appeal against acquittal.

(3.) IN the result, application for grant of leave is rejected by refusing leave to prefer appeal against acquittal.