JUDGMENT:- Heard Shri. R. A. Tambe, Advocate for the applicant and Shri. Abhijit B. Kale, Advocate for sole respondent. This is an application for special leave to file appeal against order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahata, in S.T.C. No.938 of 2006, decided on 18.08.2007. 2. Briefly stated, it is case of present applicant/complainant that it is a co-operative society. It has given loan of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent for installation of a flour mill. The respondent has issued cheque dated 07.09.2006 for Rs.35,000/- to the society towards repayment of loan. However, that cheque when presented, was dishonoured on the ground that funds were insufficient. Notice dated 07.10.2006 was issued to the respondent. Inspite of receipt of notice the respondent has not paid the amount. Hence, complaint for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. 3. The Trial Court has observed in para 14 onwards that the accused has probablised his defence during cross- examination of the complainant and proved that at the time of issuing cheque, no legally enforceable debt was due against the accused. In para 9 of the judgment, the cross-examination of P.W.1 Bhausaheb was discussed. It is admitted that total amount of Rs.78,846/- was paid till 31st December, 2006 by the accused. It is also suggested but denied that three blank cheques were issued as security and still two cheques were in possession of the complainant. After considering the evidence, the Trial Court has come to a conclusion in para 16 that amount of Rs.78,848/- was paid by 31.12.2006. The accused had paid entire loan amount. In fact loan amount of Rs.40,000/- was actually paid. He also came to a conclusion that it was not proved that Rs.70,000/- was outstanding. It is also observed that in reply to notice the accused had come out with a specific case of issuing three blank cheques and therefore burden was on the complainant to prove that cheques were not blank cheques. It is also observed that the complainant could have proved that not only signature but hand writing on the cheque was also of the accused. So, that same was not blank cheque. The Trial Court after analysis came to a conclusion that it was not proved that Rs.70,000/- was due. It is also observed that the complainant could have proved that not only signature but hand writing on the cheque was also of the accused. So, that same was not blank cheque. The Trial Court after analysis came to a conclusion that it was not proved that Rs.70,000/- was due. It is also observed that the extracts of accounts were produced after closure of evidence and there was no opportunity for the accused to cross-examine the witness of the complainant on that extract. 4. Both sides cited certain authorities. The learned advocate for the complainant cited case of Purushottam s/o. Maniklal Gandhi Vs. Manohar K. Deshmukh & Anr., 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 332, in which it is held that when a drawer of a cheque delivers a signed blank cheque, he obviously gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his choice. Therefore, there would be no question of the instrument becoming time barred, since it would become time barred only from the date of issue which would be the date on cheque which holder had the authority to fill. 5. The learned advocate for the respondent relied upon case of M/s. M. S. Narayana Menon alias Mani Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 S.C. 3366 , in which it is held that if the defence of appellant is acceptable as probable the cheque therefore cannot be held to have been issued in discharge of the debt, as, for example, if a cheque is issued for security or for any other purpose, the same would not come within the purview of 5.138 of the Act. 6. In this case, after going through the record & proceedings and the judgment of the Trial Court, in my opinion, the view taken by the Trial Court is reasonable view. Now it is well settled that if the view taken by the Trial Court is reasonable and probable, leave to file appeal against order of acquittal should not be granted. Hence, leave rejected. The Criminal Application stands dismissed. Application dismissed.