JUDGMENT : Nutan D. Sardessai, J. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class dated 28.05.2014 pursuant to which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class held that the appellant had failed to establish the guilt of the respondent and acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (Act for short hereinafter). The parties would hereinafter be referred to as the appellant and the respondent for brevity sake. 2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant challenged the same on the grounds that the learned Trial Court had misdirected itself on facts and in law while passing the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court failed to consider the statutory presumptions that arose in favour of the appellant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act and further to evaluate the evidence adduced by the appellant bearing in mind the said statutory presumptions. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class failed to consider that the respondent no.1 had admitted that he had signed the dishonoured cheque and in view thereof, ought to have drawn the necessary presumption in favour of the complainant that there was a legally enforceable debt in their favour and on account of the dishonour of the cheque, the appellants were entitled to a judgment of conviction in their favour. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class failed to come to the conclusion that the respondent no.1 was successful in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The learned Trial Court ought to have considered that the respondent no.1 was the manager of the appellant at the time of the loan application and there could not have been any manipulation in the loan application. The impugned judgment was liable for interference on such and similar grounds taken in the appeal memo and therefore, the appeal had to be allowed. 3. Heard Shri S. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the appellant who reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memo and submitted that it was a fit case to interfere with the judgment under challenge and Shri Rohan Dessai, learned Advocate for the respondent who submitted that the complainant had miserably failed to show that the cheque was issued by the respondent in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had clearly held that the respondent had probabilised the defence and therefore, there was no case to interfere with the judgment under challenge. I would consider the submissions of Shri S. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri R. Dessai, learned Advocate for the respondent and decide the appeal appropriately. 4. I have heard Shri S. Bhobe learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rohan Dessai, learned Advocate for the respondents and besides considering the judgment under challenge. 5. The respondent canvassed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class that there was a misappropriation in the appellant's society and more particularly that the date in the loan application had been altered for which there was no initial and the manipulation was done by the chairman of the complainant. Besides, it was his further contention that the appellant had not proved the agreement alleged to be with the respondent and the fact that the respondent had not paid any installment itself proved that the defence of the respondent was probable. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had held that in order to rebut the presumption in favour of the appellant/complainant, the respondent was required to prove his defence which was probable and for which he had examined himself in defence. He had clearly stated that one Sachin Patkar who was his cousin had come to his house and told him that there was a problem at his work place and as his job security had required some cheques, he had taken his full cheque book and photographs and he had given the cheques which were signed though they were blank. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had also considered the fact that the respondent had never applied for the loan from the complainant/appellant much less signed the application for loan and promissory note as was the case of the appellant/complainant. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had clearly found from the evidence of the complainant that there was an audit in the year 2009-2010 and in which an amount of Rs. 38,92,366.82 was shown to be misappropriated and which found favour with the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class to agree to the case in defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had clearly found from the evidence of the complainant that there was an audit in the year 2009-2010 and in which an amount of Rs. 38,92,366.82 was shown to be misappropriated and which found favour with the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class to agree to the case in defence. Furthermore, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had clearly found that the loan application produced on record on behalf of the respondent clearly showed some alterations, that the complainant could not identify the signature of the respondent and there was alteration in the date of the loan application which had been changed from 23.06.2009 to 03.06.2009 and unaccounted on behalf of the complainant. Besides, it was also observed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class that the first digit of the date had been altered in the loan application and it did not bear any initials of the respondent for the said alteration. 7. Although the complainant had produced the resolution for the sanction of the loan in favour of the respondent/accused, the same was dated 17.06.2009 unlike the loan application which was dated 23.06.2009 and which date too bore erasures without any initials. In that context the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had rightly concluded that there was manipulation in the loan application and besides the resolution to sanction the loan was even prior to the application for loan which improbabalised the case of the complainant or rather probabalised the case in defence that there was no such transaction whatsoever. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had therefore, rightly concluded that the respondent had successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and that the appellant/complainant had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The complainant had failed to lead any evidence to prove the signature of the respondent on the said document nor had the complainant got the signature examined through a handwriting expert. In the face of all these observations, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class therefore, categorically held and rightly so that the respondent was not guilty and acquitted him of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 8. No interference is called for with the judgment under challenge and in view thereof, i do not find any merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.