ARVIND K PANDYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application seeking special leave to appeal under section 378 (4) of Cri. P. C. against the order of acquittal passed by the learned metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in C. C. No. 1054/s/2002.

(2.) Cheques bearing Nos. 091480 and 901479 of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and Rs. 1,07,240. 00 respectively issued by the accused were dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" in the Bank account of the accused. The complainant had issued the statutory notice and there was no response as alleged by the complainant. Before the trial Court though the accused did not engage any law-yer, he cross-examined the complainant and brought out the following admissions: (a) the complainant did not mention that the cheques were given by the accused for the goods sold. (b) He did not mention in the complaint the history of the transaction. (c) He only pleaded that the accused issued two cheques for discharge of his debt or liability.

(3.) While in the witness box the complainant could not explain in what transaction the liability arose. Even in the demand notice at Exhibit 9 he had stated that he had sold and supplied cloth pieces /goods to the accused and in consideration thereof in discharge of the debt the accused had issued cheques in the name of his firm viz. P. Nitin and Company. The complainant had brought on record three invoices but all these documents did not find place in the complaint. The complainant could not prove the bills.