SHANTILAL CHHOTALAL TRIVEDI GENERAL MANAGER Vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR GIRDHARLAL SANGHAVI DIRECTOR OF M/S MAHENDRAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, original complainant, has filed this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and challenged the judgment and order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch, on 30.7.2009 in Criminal Case No. 30256 of 1999 acquitting the respondent accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act" for short).

(2.) According to the complainant, he is discharging duty as General Manager of Spinning Mill at Bharuch and the Mill was given on lease to the accused by an agreement dated 1.10.1998. As per condition No. 6 of the agreement, routine expenses like office expenses, telephone expenses, stationery, postage, salary expenses and electricity bill were to be borne by the accused. As per condition No. 7, the amount of electricity bill was to be paid by the accused to the Mill on receipt of bill and such amount was to be paid by the complainant to the Electricity Board and as per condition No. 27, amount of salary of the employees was to be deposited in the Mill on 7th day of each month. The accused gave cheque No. 741917 dated 1.7.1999 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bharuch Branch, for Rs. 3,50,000/- towards electricity bill for June, 1999 and gave cheque No. 741927 dated 7.7.1999 for Rs. 2,20,511.20 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bharuch Branch, towards salary. Both the cheques when presented in the Bank returned unpaid as the accused stopped payment of the cheques and the cheques returned witii endorsement "stop payment". Therefore, notice by registered post acknowledgment due was served to the accused but the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the amount of unpaid cheques. Therefore, complaint was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch and it was registered as Criminal Case No. 30256 of 1999.

(3.) The trial Court issued summons and the accused appeared and denied having committed the offence. Therefore, prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused also submitted written submission. After hearing learned advocates for the parties, the trial Court by impugned judgment acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal.