VIJAYBHAI JIVRAJBHAI DHAMELIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant original complainant under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C. referred hereinafter) challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 16/12/2022 passed in Criminal Case No.543 of 2019 by the learned Special Judge, N.I.Act Court, Surat.

(2.) Case of the complainant is that the complainant is doing the business in the name and style of Remedial Fashion Proprietor and the accused is doing online business and giving the orders to the complainant for readymade goods. The accused No.2 is managing the whole business of the accused and as per the order placed by the accused, the goods were sent of the amount of Rs.81,076.00 by way of different challans. For the payment of the aforesaid amount as well as the late payment charges, the cheque bearing No.001483 of ICICI Bank dtd. 25/10/2018 for the amount of Rs.1.00 Lakh was issued in favour of the complainant. On depositing the aforesaid cheque, it was returned with an endorsement of 'fund insufficient'. Therefore, the demand notice was issued on 27/11/2018 which was returned with an endorsement of 'no person staying at the Kanjali Company' on 30/11/2018. 2.1. On following the procedure prescribed under the Act, private complaint came to be filed before the learned trial Court, wherein after recording the verification, summons came to be issued upon respondentsaccused. On being appeared, plea came to be recorded below Exhibits 21 and 22 of the accused, wherein accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. 2.2. To prove the case, the complainant had examined himself below Exhibit 4 and produced the documentary evidence in the nature of bill and different challans from Exhibit 23 to Exhibit 34, outstanding report below Exhibit 35, cheque below Exhibit 36, returned memo below Exhibit 37, demand notice below Exhibit 38, Indian Post Receipt below Exhibit 39, thereafter on filing the closing pursis further statement was recorded wherein the accused had denied for the issuance the cheque and stated that the alteration was made in the cheque and he wants to send the disputed cheque before the handwriting expert and the application was given along with the prayer that action may be taken under Sec. 340 of the Cr.P.C. below Exhibit 9 which was rejected vide order dtd. 17/8/2021 by the learned trial Court on the ground that there is no any cogent and reliable reasons found to send the cheque to the FSL.

(3.) Heard the learned advocate Mr.Nishit Joshi for the appellant and as this Court has decided the case at admission stage, though the respondentsadvocate was represented through his advocate, but was not allowed to argue.