LAWS(GJH)-2011-12-276

GAJANAND KASHINATH PATIL PROPRIETOR Vs. VASANT NATU SANER

Decided On December 02, 2011
GAJANAND KASHINATH PATIL PROPRIETOR- JAY CONSTRUCTION Appellant
V/S
VASANT NATU SANER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and challenged the judgement and order of acquittal recorded by learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara, in Criminal Case No. 5784 of 2002 acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("the Act" for short).

(2.) According to the appellant-complainant, there were business relations between the appellant-complainant and the respondent-accused. After negotiations, he agreed to construct second floor and a room thereon (third floor) on the residence of the respondent-accused and completed the construction work as requested by the respondent-accused. On completion of work, he demanded outstanding amount of work done by him. Therefore, the respondent-accused gave cheque No. 388618 dated 16.9.2002 drawn on State Bank of India, Lal Baug Branch, Vadodara, for Rs. 25,000/-. The cheque was presented in the bank but it was returned unpaid with the endorsement "today's opening balance is insufficient". Therefore, notice dated 27.9.2002 was served to the respondent-accused and it was received by him. Despite that, the respondent-accused did not pay the unpaid cheque amount. Therefore, complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed.

(3.) Trial Court issued summons to the respondent-accused who appeared in the Court and denied having committed the offence and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the complainant adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, the respondent-accused in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, denied having committed the offence and stated that false case is filed against him. The respondent-accused also examined witness and produced documentary evidence. The trial Court after hearing learned advocate for the appellant-complainant and the respondent-accused, acquitted the respondent-accused.