LAWS(KAR)-2014-3-326

SHANTERI JEMA JEWELLERY Vs. T.K. BHASKARAN

Decided On March 03, 2014
Shanteri Jema Jewellery Appellant
V/S
T.K. Bhaskaran Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of acquittal passed by J.M.F.C., II Court, Karwar, in C.C. No.206/2006 dated 29.07.2008.

(2.) The brief facts that emanate from records are that the appellant complainant has lodged a complaint alleging that, on 10.11.2005 the accused has purchased some gold articles worth Rs.11,12,723/- from him and on demand, accused has issued a cheque bearing No.930918 on Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Calicut (Kozhikode), for the said amount. It is stated that on 10.12.2005 the said cheque was presented through ING Vysya Bank, Branch Karwar, which came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'payment stopped'. Hence, complainant has issued a legal notice to accused, as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act' for brevity) on 13.01.2006 and the same was served on accused on 26.01.2006. Inspite of demand by complainant, accused has not returned said money and hence, complaint came to be lodged on 28.02.2006 before J.M.F.C. II Court, Karwar. The learned Magistrate after taking the cognizance has secured presence of the accused and after recording plea accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. The learned Magistrate has framed the following points for consideration

(3.) On the side of complainant one Jyotsna Jayanand Pawaskar was examined as P.W.1, as the original complainant, who is the husband of P.W.1 has died during the pendency of proceedings. She got marked six documents as Exs.P-1 to P-6. The accused has examined himself as D.W.1 and one witness by name Nagesh Kumar Bhandari as D.W.2 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.D-1 to D-8. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on the part of the parties to the proceedings, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the complainant has not proved her case beyond all reasonable doubt. Extending the benefit of doubt, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. Against which, the present appeal is preferred.