MAKWANA HEMANTKUMAR TRIBHOVANBHAI Vs. RAMESHBHAI DAMARBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ankit Mehta, learned advocate on record for the applicant-original complainant and Mr. M.H. Shekhawat, learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of respondent no.1-original accused and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned APP who has appeared on behalf of respondent-State.

(2.) This application is filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgement and order dtd. 26/12/2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Court No. 31, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1165 of 2015. By the said judgement and order, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to record acquittal of respondent no.1-original accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of NI Act.

(3.) Mr. Ankit Mehta, learned advocate at the outset has invited attention of this Court to the averments made in the complaint and has submitted that the transaction relates to October-2014. It is contended by the complainant that the appellant and respondent no.1- original accused came in contact with each other with regard to the business of construction. The respondent no.1-original accused had approached to the complainant seeking hand-loan of amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 in the month of October-2014. Considering the friendly terms and the assurance given by the respondent no.1-original accused of repayment within short period, the complainant had advanced an amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 in cash to respondent no.1-original accused. It is further contended that the appellant had demanded the aforesaid amount whereby the respondent no.1-original accused had issued cheque bearing no. 84699 of Canara Bank, Sabarmati Branch, Ahmedabad on 9/1/2015. The aforesaid cheque was presented for realisation of the amount which was dishonored with an endorsement that "drawer's signature differs". It is further contended that the legal notice under Sec. 138 of NI Act was addressed to the correct address of respondent no.1- original accused by RPAD on 29/1/2015 which was duly served upon respondent no.1-original accused on 30/1/2015. In spite of such demand being raised, respondent no.1-original accused had defaulted to make good the payment within stipulated time period. Hence, the applicant-original complainant was constrained to approach the Court of learned Additional Chief Metro. Magistrate by filing the present complaint under Sec. 138 of NI Act. The same was registered as Criminal Case No. 1165 of 2015.