IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. Tejaram Ramnath Mourya — Applicant. Versus Ramasrey Haridas Soni and Anr. — Respondents. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.172 of 2008 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 Decided on : 16th April, 2008. Advocates appeared: Mr. Sachind Pande, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. 2. The applicant-orig.complainant has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 1st November, 2007 passed by the learned JMFC, Court No.1, Pune in S.C.C. No.28159 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent-orig.accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The case of the complainant is that the respondent-accused took amount from the complainant from time to time for purchasing land and when the complainant demanded the said amount from the accused, the accused issued cheque of Rs.10 lacs (Exh.23). No documents have been filed by the complainant to show that he had given loan to the accused. The complainant has not filed the books of accounts as well as the income tax returns. As per the affidavit of examination-in-chief, the complainant has paid the amount to the person shown as owner of the property through the accused. Thus, it is noticed that the complainant had given this amount to the person calling himself as the owner of the property. Useful reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Vasudev Ramchand Ahuja Vs. Vilas Shripati Kamble reported in 1 2006(2) Bombay C.R.(Cri.) 1 : [2006 ALL MR (Cri.) 3203, wherein it is observed as under : "The observation seen by the trial Court that amount allegedly paid by complainant during period has not been reflected in income Tax returns as well as in books of account. Reasons recorded by the court below on appreciation of evidence on record, impugned judgment cannot be said to be unreasonable and perverse." 4. Moreover on perusal of the evidence, it is seen that the complainant had agreed to sale his flat at Rastha Peth, Pune and shop at Kondhwa for Rs.11 lacs. The respondent-accused by way of partial payment of the amount in respect of the said agreement gave Rs.78,000/- in cash and Rs.22,000/- by cheque to the complainant. The complainant has realized the said amount in his bank account. The respondent-accused by way of partial payment of the amount in respect of the said agreement gave Rs.78,000/- in cash and Rs.22,000/- by cheque to the complainant. The complainant has realized the said amount in his bank account. For the remaining amount, the accused had given a blank cheque of Rs.10 lacs duly signed by him by way of security to the complainant. The said cheque was to be deposited in the Bank for realisation only after the execution of the sale-deed. It is an admitted fact that no sale-deed was executed by the complainant. Thus, it is seen that the complainant instead of executing the sale-deed in the name of the accused, without obtaining consent of the accused deposited the cheque in the bank for encashment. Looking to the evidence on record, the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate that the complainant has not proved that the accused had issued the said cheque for repayment of his liability, is a reasonable and possible view. 5. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then mere circumstance that the lower Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and 1 C. Anthony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 : [2003 ALL MR (CRI.) 130 (S.C.)]. In the case of Anthony C. Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to appeal is rejected.