OMPRAKASH SHYAMAL MISHRA Vs. PRAVINBHAI DASHRATHBHAI DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has preferred this appeal under Sec. 378(4) of the Code Criminal Procedure against the order dated 15.9.2014 rendered by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.171 of 2010. The said case was registered against the present respondent No.1 original accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The case of the complainant was that the appellant complainant lent the money in installments amounting to Rs. 1 Lac to the respondent accused on account of his personal financial need. After some time, the appellant started to demand the money from the respondent and therefore, the respondent accused issued a cheque of Rs. 1 Lac drawn on Central Bank of India being No. 699518 dated 8.12.2009, which was returned back to the appellant by bank on 9.12.2009 with an endorsement of "payment stopped by the drawer". Thereafter, on several occasions, the appellant made demand, but the respondent did not pay the same. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 accused informed the appellant to deposit the check on 11.1.2010, which was also returned back with the endorsement of the bank that "todays opening balance is insufficient". Thereafter, the appellant issued legal notice to the accused, but same was not responded nor paid any amount by the accused. Thereafter, the appellant after serving demand notice as required under the Act, filed criminal complaint under the provisions of Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial Court.

(3.) It appears that on 15.9.2014, learned trial Judge dismissed the case of the appellant as he was not present on that day. Learned trial Judge also observed in his order that the complainant was given sufficient time by adjourning the matter on six times to produce evidence and on 22.8.2014 and though the learned advocate for the complainant assured for securing the presence of the complainant on next date by imposing costs of Rs. 200.00, the complainant did not remain present before the trial Court and therefore, the trial Court acquitted the accused by dismissing the case of the complainant. Against the said order, present Appeal is preferred by the appellant original complainant.