VISHWANATH Vs. RAOSAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (original complainant) has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 22.3.2007, rendered by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna in S.T.C. No. 1326 of 2006 acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and prayed for quashment thereof.

(2.) In nut shell, the complainant's case is that there were cordial/friendly relations between the complainant and the accused and at the request of the accused, the complainant gave hand loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused on 7.6.2005 for relieving the tractor and also towards his financial difficulties. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused did not repay the said loan within the period of one year in spite of making repeated requests. However, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 0489970 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Tembhurni on 4.4.2006 for Rs. 2,50,000/-. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment purpose to the Bank of Maharashtra, Tembhurni Branch on 28.5.2006. However, said cheque was dishonoured and returned unpaid with the endorsement, "insufficient funds" on 29.5.2006 along with the cheque return memo of the said Bank. Hence, the complainant issued statutory notice to the accused on 30.5.2006 and thereafter filed the complaint against the accused on 7.6.2006 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna. Accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna assigned the said complaint to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna by order dated 8.6.2006. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna took the cognizance and passed the issue process order against the accused on 30.6.2006 and accused appeared in the said case and his plea was recorded. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In order to substantiate the claim of the complainant, he examined himself by filing affidavit of evidence and adduced oral evidence as well as produced the documentary evidence. The accused also examined himself and adduced the oral evidence. The defence of the accused is that he had not signed the cheque in question and the complainant is engaged in money lending business. It is also defence of the accused that he obtained loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant and the cheque in question was not issued by him.