SANJEEV PANDEY Vs. BHEDRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present acquittal appeal has been fled by the appellant/complainant against the judgment dtd. 5/8/2008 passed in Criminal Case No.505/07 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.), whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 herein from the charge punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short'the N.I. Act').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant herein was running a tractor agency and respondent No.1/accused had purchased a tractor from the applicant after getting fnancial assistance from the bank. On 5/2/2007, the respondent/accused contacted the appellant and demanded Rs.70,000.00 on the ground that today is the last date of paying the installment of the tractor purchased by him and if he fails in depositing the installment, the fnance company will seize the tractor. The appellant, looking his earlier conduct in returning the money, gave him Rs.70,000.00 and towards refund of the said amount, the respondent/accused gave a cheque bearing No.1337254 amounting to Rs.70,000.00dtd. 5/2/2007 drawn on Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Branch Kawardha. Thereafter, the said cheque was presented in in his bank for payment and the same was dishonored due to insufcient fund and returned unpaid to the appellant by his banker. Thereafter, on 24/3/2007, the appellant served a legal to respondent No.1/accused but despite service of notice, the accused/ respondent did not pay the borrowed amount to the appellant which is an ofence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. Since, the amount was not paid, the complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act was fled.

(3.) The trial Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued notice to the accused/respondent herein who then appeared in the matter. The trial was conducted and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 herein on this ground that the appellant/Complainant herein has completely failed to establish the fact that an amount of Rs.70,000.00 was borrowed by the accused/respondent No.1 and ultimately the order of acquittal was passed which sought to be challenged by fling the instant appeal.