(1.) THIS is Complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vide Order dated 21.11.2005 of the learned J.M.F.C., Margao.
(2.) THE case of the Complainant was that the accused had borrowed from the Complainant on 24.04.2003, a sum of Rs.30,000/- to meet his urgent financial needs and in repayment of the same, had issued a cheque to the Complainant on 25.07.2003 for the said sum drawn on Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Margao, which cheque, when presented by the Complainant for clearance, was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds on 25.07.2003, as a result of which, the Complainant sent the statutory notice dated 19.08.2003, which the accused received but failed to comply the same. The Complainant therefore filed the complaint.
(3.) THE case of the accused was that he had approached the Complainant for a loan of Rs.5,000/- on the condition that the accused executes a demand promissory note and deposits a blank signed cheque to be kept as security for the repayment of the loan. The accused also stated that he had handed over the said blank cheque in the presence of Shri Prakash Shirodkar of Fatorda and Advocate Lourdes Coutinho. The accused examined himself and also brought one person to be examined as a witness by name Prakash Shirodkar, who filed his affidavit in evidence. According to the Complainant, the said witness brought by the accused as Prakash Shirodkar, was Santosh Naik, resident of Gogol, Margao. This was on 01.07.2005. Once the controversy was raised as regards the identity of the said Prakash Shirodkar, the said Prakash Shirodkar did not turn up before the Court for further cross examination and consequently, the accused closed his case on 19.08.2005. It may be stated that on behalf of the Complainant, an application was filed to take appropriate action against the accused and the said Santosh Naik and the same is pending.