LAWS(GJH)-2021-12-1302

MAHESHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On December 02, 2021
Maheshbhai Ambalal Patel Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Maheshbhai Ambalal Patel (Original Complainant) (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dtd. 17/2/2007, passed in Criminal Case No. 5292 of 2004 by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand recording the acquittal against Respondent No. 2-Prakash Manibhai Patel (Original Accused) for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the appellant has lodged a complaint before the Court that the respondent No. 2 herein had borrowed Rs.1,48,735.00 from him since he was in need of money. That, respondent no. 2 had promised to repay the said amount within about 2 months. The respondent No. 2 gave a cheque being No. 980724 dtd. 18/8/2004 of Rs.1,48,735.00 to the appellant and had assured that the said cheque would be honoured. That, the appellant had deposited the said cheque on 18/8/2004 and on the very same date the said cheque was returned as dishonoured on the ground of 'insufficient funds' and hence, the complainant issued a legal notice dtd. 26/8/2004 to the respondent No. 2 by registered Post A.D. and U.P.C. under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That, the said legal notice was served upon the respondent on 28/8/2004, but the respondent-accused did not give satisfactory reply to the said legal notice and therefore the appellant was constrained to file a complaint before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein after referred to as "the NI Act").

(3.) Upon such complaint being filed and subsequent service of summons upon the respondent No. 2, he appeared before the Court. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against him. Vide impugned judgment and order dtd. 17/2/2007, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred present appeal.