(1.) These 23 appeals have arisen from the judgments and orders dated 27.3.2009 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla in 23 separate cases, out of which, by consent, the facts and judgment of the first case, i.e. Criminal Case No.2015 of 2005, is taken as representative and main judgment, all the cases having similar facts and common issues. The criminal cases were initiated by the present appellant on the basis of dishonour of cheques admittedly signed and issued by the respondent-accused person and, in each case, the accused person is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act") mainly on the ground that the complainant had failed to prove enforceable debt or legal liability on the part of the accused person.
(2.) The backdrop of indisputable relevant facts is that, in all, 23 cheques bearing dates of 14th, 15th and 16th July, 2005 were presented for clearance and returned by the bank. Again they were presented on 08.08.2005 and upon being dishonoured again, notice was issued and then the complaints were filed. It was stated by the appellant in the complaint that he had lent approximately an amount exceeding Rs.22 lakhs and the accused person had not repaid any amount towards the principal and hence issued 23 cheques in question. It is averred in the complaint that the accused person had given assurance when the amounts were lent to him that he would repay the amount in installments but having failed to abide by his promise, he had also committed offence under Section 420 of IPC.
(3.) During the course of evidence the complainant examined himself at Ex.15 to reiterate the averments of the complaint on oath and during the extensive cross-examination, he, inter alia, stated that he had the record of monies lent by him to the accused and the amounts received by him; that the transactions were spread over the period from 1997 to 2000; that he had paid or lent money to the accused person by cheque and by cash; that he had approached D. S. P. , Bharuch with a complaint in respect of the same; that the dates of the cheques were filled up by him; that there was a condition that the accused person would give to the complainant fresh set of cheques every five months and he denied the suggestions that the accused had already repaid total sum of Rs.34 lakhs and the debt, if any, was, in any case barred by limitation for recovery thereof in a Civil Court.