(1.) On 16/6/2022, this Court has observed that since the matter is of the year 2012, as a last chance was given for the respondent No. 2 but today, when the matter is called out, none is present for the respondent No. 2 and therefore, Court is inclined to proceed with the matter at the request of the learned advocate for the appellant.
(2.) The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dtd. 21/11/2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act, Court No. 33, Ahmedabad in the Criminal Case No. 7 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as "N.I. Act").
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-complainant is engaged in the business of wholesale medicines and accused is engaged in the business of selling jewellery. That, appellant-complainant knew respondent-accused through a common friend of both of them i.e. Jagabhai Soni. That, the respondent had borrowed an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs from the appellant-complainant to develop his business through different cheques. That, the accused had issued cheques in favour of the complainant being cheque Nos. 591453, 591454 and 591455 of Rs.1.00 lakh each, which were credited in the account of the complainant. That, the accused had also issued cheque No. 591456 of Rs.1.00 lakh, which was dishonoured, therefore, out of total amount of Rs.5.00 lakh, only Rs.3.00 lakh was paid by the accused and Rs.2.00 lakh was due, hence, the accused had issued a cheque of Rs.2.00 lakhs vide cheque No. 591460 dtd. 25/8/2007 of the UTI Bank Ltd., Law Garden Ahmedabad, which was deposited on 25/8/2007 and the said cheque was dishonoured on 27/8/2007 with endorsement of "insufficient funds". That, the complainant issued legal notice through his lawyer on 31/8/2007 through R.P.A.D. and UPC. That, the notice was served to the accused but the accused failed to pay the due amount and therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. That, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused and therefore, the State has preferred this appeal.