ARPIT V. PANDYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - original complainant has filed this appeal under section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act), Ahmedabad on 19.4.2001 in Criminal Case No. 8590 of 2009 acquitting respondent No.2 for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act).

(2.) According to the appellant, respondent No.2 was serving with his father Vinodray Pandya and therefore, he was known to him. On account of good relations between respondent No.2 and father of the appellant, father of the appellant had advanced Rs. 1,20,000/between 1999 and 2000 by making payment by cheque from his father's account. On settlement of account with respondent No.2, he gave a cheque of Rs. 30,000/bearing cheque No.130730 dated 12.3.2009 for Rs. 30,000/drawn on Union Bank of India, Jamalpur Branch. The said cheque had returned dishonoured by the bank with endorsement "No Account/Account closed on advice". The bank memo dated 22.6.2009 was sent by bank of respondent No.2 and his bank informed him with regard to the same on 24.6.2009. Therefore, notice dated 20.7.2009 was served to respondent No.2, but respondent No.2 gave false reply dated 4.8.2009 and did not pay the amount of cheque. Therefore, complaint under section 138 of the Act was filed and it was registered as Criminal Case No.8590 of 2009.

(3.) The trial Court issued summons to respondent No.2, who appeared and pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the complainant adduced evidence in support of his case. On completion of recording of evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against respondent No.2 were explained to him. Respondent No.2 in his further statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 denied having committed the offence and has stated that cheque given to the father of the complainant has been misused. After hearing learned advocates for the parties, the trial Court by impugned judgment acquitted respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant - original complainant has preferred this acquittal appeal.