Shree Credit Service, Digdoh M.I.D.C. Nagpur Thr. Mr. Radhakrishna S/O. Ayodhyaprasad Mishra v. Samadhan Ghaman Ghandoje

1 appa838.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 838/2016 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2018 Shree Credit Service, Digdoh ..VS..

Samadhan S/o Ghaman Ghandoje - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.D. Malke, Advocate for the applicant CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 03/09/ The matter is listed in order matters with the office note that the report of service of notice on the nonapplicant/respondent is awaited. The applicant/appellant seeks leave to file appeal to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate by which the complaint filed by it under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is dismissed and the nonapplicant/respondent is acquitted. The learned Magistrate has recorded that the complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the cheques in question were issued by the nonapplicant/respondent to discharge legally enforceable debt. It is admitted that the accused had given blank cheques containing only the signature of the accused. It is not in dispute that rest of the contents on the cheques are not in

2 appa838.16 the hand writing of the accused. The evidence on record shows that according to the complainant, it is in Micro Finance business and the cheques were issued to repay the amount of loan taken by the accused, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The complainant has failed to prove that he was holding valid license to carry on the Micro Finance business. I find that the learned Magistrate has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly concluded that the complainant has failed to prove that the cheques in question were issued to repay the legally enforceable debt. As I find that the appreciation of evidence on record by the learned Magistrate is just and proper, I see no reason to grant leave to the applicant/appellant to file the appeal.

The application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is rejected.

JUDGE Ansari