JUDGMENT :

S.M. MODAK, J.

1. Written notes of the arguments filed by the Appellant is taken on record and marked as ‘Annexure-X’. No one is present on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. His learned Advocate has already argued the matter.

2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Sujay Palshikar for the Appellant- Complainant and learned Advocate Shri Indrajeet Joshi for the Respondent No. 1 and learned APP for the Respondent No. 2-State.

3. The Court of the JMFC, Kolhapur has acquitted the Respondent-accused mainly for two reasons:

(a) The firm of the Complainant was not registered and as such the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable in view of the bar laid down as per Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act.

(b) Second ground is the Complainant could not prove the mercantile transaction with the Respondent No. 1.

The correctness of the judgment is challenged by the Appellant. Leave was granted on 20/09/2006. Party will be referred to as per their original status.

4. This appeal needs to be decided on certain principles about interference by the Appellate Court when ther