LAWS(CHH)-2020-2-5

AMAR KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. RAMESH SINGH

Decided On February 06, 2020
Amar Kumar Agrawal Appellant
V/S
RAMESH SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This acquittal appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 10-7-2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in complaint case No. 402 of 2016 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act, 1881") wherein the said court acquitted the respondent for the said charge.

(2.) As per the complaint, appellant is the proprietor of Prabha Sales wherein sale and purchase of railway equipment/machinery is done. Respondent/accused is the proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Construction and he obtained tender/contract from Railway division, Bilaspur. Earlier both parties entered into agreement regarding work of the contract of the railway obtained by the respondent. Appellant provided money to the respondent, therefore, cordial relationship was built up between the parties. When respondent obtained new contract from South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur, then he demanded loan from appellant and appellant gave him loan to the tune of Rs.13,69,410/-. The respondent returned the amount of Rs.3,69,410/- to the appellant by cash and bank account and for remaining loan amount he gave a cheque bearing No. 887961 dated 2-5-2016 to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- of Axis Bank of Bilaspur to the appellant as per Annexure A/3. Appellant produced cheque for encashment but the cheque has been returned with endorsement that fund is insufficient in the account of the respondent on 12-5-2016. Dishonoured memo is Annexure A/4, therefore, appellant sent legal notice to the respondent through counsel and same has been received by the respondent despite he had failed to make payment of cheque amount. Appellant recorded the conversation of respondent with him through his mobile and the SIM and transcript of the conversation produced before the trial court. By the impugned order dated 10-7-2019 the trial court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent against factual matrix and legal aspect of the matter.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under: