SUREKHA SANDIP HAJARE Vs. INSTACOMP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, kolhapur, in the matter of Regular Criminal Case No. 402 /1996, by which he acquitted the accused for an offence punishable under provisions of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as Negotiable instruments Act for convenience ).

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent No. 1, happens to be the partner of Instacomp, a firm dealing in computers and auxiliary parts for performance of the computers. It is alleged by the appellant that she purchased a printer from respondent No. 1 for Rs. 35,000/ -. She paid Rs. 5000/- in cash for which voucher bearing No. 586 was issued, vide voucher No. 585 acknowledgement of payment of Rs. 25,000/-was vouchered. On 12-10-1995 rs. 5000/- were given already. Thus, the said amount of Rs. 35,000/- were accounted for. The appellant used that printer for some days and thereafter as the said printer was not properly functioning, a complaint was made. After due settlement, it was agreed that respondent No. 1 was to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 26,000/- and she was to return back the said printer to him. On 15-6-1996 a letter was issued in that context by respondent No. 1. The printer was returned, a cheque bearing No. 145527 for sum of Rs. 26,000/- drawn on shri Veershaiv Co-op. Bank Ltd. , Kolhapur, dated 15-6-1996 was given to appellant. As per prosecution case, the said cheque was presented for payment through Kolhapur Urban Co-op. Bank, Branch Shahupuri on 17-6-1996. The said cheque was dishonoured. This fact was informed to respondent No. 1 by the present appellant on telephone. In view of that, respondent No. 1 requested the appellant to present it again for payment and assured that he would be making necessary arrangement for payment. The said cheque was again presented for encashment on 26-6-1996 through the said bank. It was again dishonoured. Again respondent No. 1 was orally informed about that and he requested the appellant at present it again with assurance that he would make necessary arrangement for encashment of said cheque. Said cheque was again presented on 21-6-1996 and it was dishonoured on the ground that the payment was not arranged.

(3.) THE appellant issued a notice in that context on 1-7-1996 to respondent no. 1. The said notice was received by respondent no. 1 on 2-7-1996. He did not pay the said amount of Rs. 26,000/- to the appellant. In the meanwhile, the appellant did not receive the acknowledgement due receipt through the post. Hence, she lodged a complaint with Postal Department in respect of non-receipt of acknowledgment due receipt. After making necessary enquiry, the postal department informed her on 22-8-1996 that the said acknowledgement receipt was lost in handling, but provided her a certified copy of the said acknowledgement receipt. The appellant filed the criminal complaint in the Court, which was tried by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Kolhapur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after trial held that the said complaint was time barred, as it was filed after the period of one month. By holding that way the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur acquitted the accused and the said judgment of acquittal was put to challenge by this appeal.