ANJANA BALKRISHNA SHEWALE Vs. CHAYYA BOBAN JAGDATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant original complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.12.2007 passed by the learned JMFC, Pune in SCC No. 45583 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent No. 1 original accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant original complainant. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been annexed.

(3.) The case of the complainant is that she had advanced loan of Rs. 3,20,000 to the accused. The accused issued cheque in question to her in discharge of the said liability. As the cheque was not honoured, complaint came to be filed. The complainant has not mentioned the date and the amount paid to the accused on such dates in her complaint. No details have been given as to what amount has been advanced and on what dates it was advanced to the accused. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that she had Rs.3,20,000 with her to pay the accused from 19.3.2005 to 20.8.2006. On the contrary the complainant is a housewife. She has not produced any documentary evidence to show that she had any source of income. In cross-examination the complainant has stated that she borrowed loan of Rs 4,00,000 from Pune Urban Co-operative Bank on 19.3.2005. Her case is that she paid accused out of the said amount. The complainant was paying monthlyinstallment of Rs. 3,158. The alleged amount of Rs. 3,20,000 is paid by the complainant from 19.3.2005 to 20.8.2006. The complainant has further stated in her cross-examination that she is earning Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that she is earning Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month. There is nothing to show that she was earning at all. The complainant is not paying income tax nor has she produced any documents showing availability of Rs. 3,20,000 with her to, make the payment. This creates doubt whether the complainant was earning and she was having Rs. 3,20,000 so as to advance it to the accused. Moreover, the complainant's case is that she had borrowed Rs.4,00,000 from bank and she was paying monthly installment of Rs. 3,158 thereon. It is difficult to accept that the complainant borrowed money from the bank on which she would pay interest, so as to advance interest free loan to the accused. No prudent person will borrow such a huge amount and by installments thereon so as to help a friend.