NARENDRA SINGH Vs. JAS KARAN LAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dtd. 26/5/1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist, Barabanki in Complaint Case No. 662 of 1999 (Narendra Singh Versus Jas Karan Lal Verma) under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Police Station Kotwali City, District Barabanki, whereby the accused/opposite party was acquitted.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are as follows:- A cheque was issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant and that was dishonoured. On 6/5/1998 the appellant sent a registered notice to the respondent within the prescribed time of 15 days. The notice so sent was received by the respondent on 14/5/1998 but the respondent did not pay the cheque amount to the appellant. Thereafter the appellant filed a criminal complaint against the respondent. In the complaint the appellant alleged that the respondent purchased Mentha Oil from the appellant and the payment was towards the Mentha Oil but the cheque was dishonoured.

(3.) The concerned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. and summoned the respondent. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Sec. 244 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the concerned Magistrate framed the charge against the accused respondent under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "N.I. Act"). The accused respondent denied the crime and claimed to be tried. The complainant was cross-examined under Sec. 246 of Cr.P.C. He also produced one witness namely Duryodhan Prasad as P.W. 2. After close of evidence of complainant/appellant, the statement of accused/respondent was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied any contract of sale and purchase of Mentha Oil and issuance of cheque. He also denied receipt of any notice through Registered Post. He stated that he issued a cheque of Rs.45,000.00 in lieu of earlier contractual work. He further stated that some of cheques were stolen from his cheque-book about which he informed to the Bank and Bank cancelled the cheques so stolen and stopped the payment of the stolen cheques. The respondent examined D.W.1-Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Branch Manager of Union Bank of India to prove the fact that his cheques were stolen and he applied to the Bank to cancel the cheques and stop the payment.