SHASHIKANT Vs. NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against acquittal. The appellant herein is the original complainant in Summary Criminal Case, being S.C.C. No.954/2015 instituted for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent herein was the accused in the said case. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence in the case, acquitted the respondent simply on the ground that the statutory demand notice did not disclose what type of transaction it was between the appellant and the respondent. The trial Court held that the receiver of a notice must at least know his legal liability for which cheque was issued. Since such details were not in the demand notice, the notice was held to be not legal and proper.

(2.) This Court had admitted the appeal. On service of notice of this appeal, the respondent marked his appearance through an Advocate. When the appeal was taken up for final hearing, neither the respondent nor his Advocate were present. This Court, therefore, appointed Shri Ketan G. Pote, learned counsel to assist the Court in this matter by representing the respondent herein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, issuance of the cheque is the fact not in dispute. On receipt of the statutory demand notice, the respondent did not reply. A sum of Rs.3,05,000.00 was paid to the respondent as a hand loan in the presence of witnesses. During trial, the respondent failed to make out his case or rebut a statutory presumption. According to learned counsel, the statutory demand notice need not necessarily contain details of transaction. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Central Bank of India Vs. M/s Saxons Farms [ 2000(1) Mh.L.J. 366 ]. He ultimately urged for allowing the appeal with grant of compensation amounting to twice the amount of cheque.