CHAKRESH JAIN Vs. HARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter was heard finally.

(2.) The present application for leave to appeal under Sec. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dtd. 5/3/2019 (Annexure A/1) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 254/2018 passed by the learned First Additional Session Judge, Durg arising out of the judgment of conviction dtd. 29/8/2018 passed in Complaint case no. 27986/2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg, District-Durg(C.G.)

(3.) The case in nutshell is such that, before the trial Court, on behalf of the appellant (herein) Chakresh Jain complaint case was filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to the effect that on the basis of their old acquaintance the accused, in need of money demanded Rs.2,00,000.00 from the complainant, on which the complainant gave Rs.2,00,000.00 to the Respondent(herein) as loan on 6/10/2012 which the respondent promised to return in six months. The respondent gave a cheque no. 575103 of UCO Bank, Bhilai to the appellant on 28/6/2013 for payment of the amount within a stipulated time period. Which when deposited in the respondent's account, was dishonored due to the account being closed, which was informed to the respondent by the bank management. On 30/7/2013 the appellant through his lawyer sent a legal notice of dishonour of the cheque to the address of the respondent, which the respondent accepted but did not pay the amount of the cheque to the appellant. Therefore, aggrieved by the said act of the respondent, the appellant filed a complaint case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requesting that an appropriate penalty be imposed on the respondent and the amount mentioned in the cheque be returned to him.