RAMESH NAGARKOTI Vs. KEDAR DATT PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, is preferred by the appellant-complainant against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2018, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora in Complaint Case No.01 of 2018, "Ramesh Nagarkoti vs. Kedar Datt Purohit", whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondent-accused from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act, 1881").

(2.) As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant and the accused were businessmen and the complainant had good relations with the accused, who was the proprietor of "Purohit Agency." The accused made a request to the complainant that he was in need of money for his business work and for purchasing a house. He assured the complainant to return the amount as early as possible. Due to the relationship, the complainant deposited time to time Rs.19,45,000.00/- through NEFT/RTGS in the account of the accused's proprietorship firm "Purohit Agency" and Rs.55,000.00/- through cash payment on credit. In the said deposited amount, a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- was deposited by the complainant through Gopal Singh (PW-2). The complainant gave a sum of total Rs.20,00,000.00/- to the respondent on credit. The complainant demanded his money. Then, the accused issued a cheque No.797972 dated 16.10.2017 payable on Indian Bank, Almora for the sum of Rs.20,00,000.00/- in regard to the credit amount given to the accused. The said cheque was deposited by the complainant in his account. The said cheque was dishonoured by the bank of the accused with note of "exceed agreement". The complainant acknowledged the dishonoured cheque on 02.11.2017 and a legal notice was sent to the accused on 09.11.2017, which was served upon the accused on 17.11.2017. A reply was given by the accused on false and misconceived facts. Since no payment was forthcoming pursuant to the said demand notice, a complaint case was filed by the complainant against the accused under Section 138 of the Act, 1881.

(3.) The learned trial court took cognizable on the complaint. The process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") was issued. The respondent-accused appeared before the learned trial court. Substance of accusation was recorded by the learned trial court, wherein the respondentaccused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.