RAOSAHEB SATYAGOUDA PATIL Vs. VILAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is assailed against the judgment of acquittal returned by the learned Magistrate thereby, acquitting the accused of the charges of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1882.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the fact is:

(3.) SRI R M Kulkarm, learned Counsel for the complainant submits that admittedly the accused used to purchase computer and peripherals on credit basis. But the learned Magistrate erroneously has drawn adverse inference against him for non -production of documentary evidence like daily transactions, ledger book, audit account book and cash book pertaining to accounts. As such, the invoices and delivery challans were produced as Exs. D.1 to D.7. The main reason for dismissal of the complaint was, as per the extract of the ledger account/Ex. D.7, the outstanding amount was Rs. 1,15,499/ - but the cheque amount was for Rs. 1,15,000/ - and this was inferred by the learned Magistrate as a discrepancy in respect of the outstanding amount payable to the complainant. Inspite of the documentary proof of Ex. D.7, on stray admission during the cross -examination of P.W. 1, that he was not sure of the exact balance amount due by the accused, on this flimsy ground the complainant was non -suited.