Judgment 1. Heard rival submissions on this criminal appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal of respondents-accused in the matter of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned judgment and order was passed on 17/7/2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon. 2. The only question, which was relevant before the trial Court, was whether the concerned cheque for Rs.50,000/-was towards the repayment of any legally enforceable debt or towards any liability? In order to ascertain whether the impugned judgment and order is required to be interfered with or not, the factual position is narrated as under: Admittedly, there was some understanding between the accused persons, President and Secretary of Jijamata Krushi Sanstha, Katoda and the present appellant-original complainant by which seeds of crop by name Kolius were to be purchased by the complainant from the accused at the rate of Rs.10,000/-per acre and after sowing the said seeds in his own field, the complainant has to cultivate the crop and the final yield of the crop was to be sold to the society-accused persons @ Rs.8,000/-per quintal. It was also agreed between the parties that the complainant shall not sale the said crop to anybody else. According to the complainant, as and by way of advance payment, the concerned cheque for Rs.50,000/-was given to him by the society on 26/6/2006. It was deposited with the banker of the complainant, however, it was dishonoured with an endorsement, ‘no sufficient funds in the accounts’ and hence a demand notice was issued to the accused persons and ultimately criminal complaint was filed since there was no reply to the demand notice so also there was no payment for dishonoured cheque. 3. It is a case in which the only evidence of the complainant was recorded. During his cross-examination, the complainant has specifically agreed regarding terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties as mentioned above. So also, he has agreed that by way of an advance the concerned cheque was given to him. As such, there is nothing brought on record by the complainant that whether he had concluded his part of the contract i.e. after growing the crop of Kolius, whether he had given the said final crop to the accused. So also, he has agreed that by way of an advance the concerned cheque was given to him. As such, there is nothing brought on record by the complainant that whether he had concluded his part of the contract i.e. after growing the crop of Kolius, whether he had given the said final crop to the accused. During the cross-examination, the complainant had came with a different story that accused had given him a cheque as deposit amount probably a security deposit for not to sell the crop to any third party. As such, it is apparent that as on giving of the said concerned cheque to the complainant, there was no legally enforceable liability and the right to receive the money @ Rs.8,000/-per quintal has not accrued in favour of the complainant. During the cross-examination the complainant had specifically agreed that he had no correspondence with him as to giving intimation to the accused persons to receive the crop cultivated by him. In fact, it is not at all the case of the complainant that he had cultivated the crop and delivered it to the accused persons and thus was entitled to receive the sale proceeds of the said crop from the accused persons. 4. When the impugned judgment is perused, which is in vernacular – Marathi, there is nothing to interfere in the said judgment and specifically the observations made in para Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment. There is no substance in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and accordingly disposed of.