Rule. By consent, heard forthwith.

2. This is an application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5.1.2007 made by the J.M.F.C. Hinganghat in Summary Criminal Case No. 5120 of 2002.

3. In support of the present application as well as appeal against acquittal preferred by the applicant/ appellant, Mr.Apurv De argued that the learned trial Court committed an error in acquitting the respondent/accused for extraneous reasons and that there was a legally enforceable liability against the respondent/accused which was not discharged by him and, on the contrary, the cheque given by him had bounced. Admittedly there was dishonour of cheque which was given to the appellant and that in fact was not disputed. According to Mr.De, the fact that the loan was disbursed to the respondent/accused by the applicant/credit society is not in dispute so also the agreement regarding interest at rest payable thereon and in the wake of said agreement it was no use to carry adverse impression about the total liability that had ultimately swollen to. He, therefore, submitted that the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the respondent/accused and, therefore, leave to appeal deserves to be granted.

4. Per contra, Mr.Karia, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submits that loan amount of Rs.10,680/- only was disbursed to the respondent/accused in or about the month of October 1997 upon sanction of the loan by the managing committee of the applicant/credit society on 21.9.1997. According to him, as on 30.6.2005 the liability of the respondent/accused with interest was shown by the applicant/credit society to the tune of Rs.69,520/-. He then argued that there is a finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondent/accused in fact directly and indirectly paid an amount of Rs.40,800/- and that is almost four times the amount of loan disbursed to him during the period of only eight years. He then argued that even then the credit society was claiming additional liability of Rs.69,520/-, meaning thereby that the total liability of Rs.10,680/- was sought to be shown to the tune of Rs.01,08,000/-. He invited my attention to the finding recorded by the trial Court that the loan advanced was agricultural loan. He, therefore, argued that the liability alleged by the applicant was not a legally enforceable liability and hence no interference is called for in the present application/appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length and also gone through the impugned judgment. From perusal of the facts it appears that on 21.7.1997 the managing committee of the applicant/credit society sanctioned a loan of Rs.12,000/- to the respondent/accused. Witness no.1 for the applicant admitted that the loan advanced to the respondent/ accused was agricultural loan (Para 10 of judgment in Marathi). It would be appropriate to reproduce the finding in paragraph 11 of the judgment of the trial Court, which reads thus :

"It appears from the evidence of witness Pramod Pohekar that accused was granted loan of Rs.12,000/-. He was given Rs.10,680/-. But as per Ex.36, interest was charged on the amount of Rs.12,000/-. He further deposed that on 10.6.2004 Rs.1000/-, on 16.12.2005 Rs.15,000/- and on 18.7.2006 Rs.20,000/- were deposited by the accused in his loan account. The receipts thereof are placed on record. They are at Exs. 37 and 38. He does not know anything about Rs.1200/- deducted from the amount of Rs.12,000/-. He agreed that Rs.1200/- at 10 can be Rs.4800/- and the accused has deposited Rs.36,000/- hence it can be Rs.40,800/-."

It, therefore, appears that the applicant/credit society had shown liability of Rs.69,520/- as on 30.6.2005, which means from October 1997 till 30.6.2005 the amount of Rs.10,680/- with interest swelled to Rs.69,520/-. In other words, this is more than six times of the original amount disbursed to th