KIRAN RAMESHLAL BHANDARI Vs. NARAYAN PURUSHOTTAM SARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been filed by the original complainant challenging judgment and order in Summary Criminal Case No.5638 of 2013 and Summary Criminal Case No.5639 of 2013 decided by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad (Court No.1) on 20.02.2017; thereby acquitting the accused/ respondent of committing offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It will not be out of place to mention here that the case of the complainant was same in both the cases. The defence of the accused is same. However, since two different Judgments have been given it has resulted in these two separate appeals. But since all the issues are same it is proposed to dispose of both the appeals by this common Judgment.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.C. Arora for appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Amol Kakade holding for learned Advocate Mr. C.D. Fernandes for respondent in both the appeals.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-complainant has vehemently submitted that the complainant had come with a case that he had friendly relations with the accused. Accused was in need of money to purchase immovable property, and therefore, he had requested the complainant to extend amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- in respective cases, which was extended by the complainant. In discharge of the said legal enforceable debt or liability two cheques were issued. One was bearing No.442364 dated 25.03.2013 for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Nashik Merchants Co-operative Bank Limited, Aurangabad and another was drawn on the same date and same branch bearing No.442365 for Rs.6,00,000/-. After those cheques were deposited by the complainant in his bank, they were dishonoured for the reason "refer to drawer". Thereafter two separate notices were issued by the complainant on 15.06.2013, which were received by the accused on 18.06.2013. The accused neither replied it nor refunded the amount, and therefore, complainant filed those two separate complaints. After taking into consideration the evidence the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. Hence, these appeals.