HANUMANT R NAIK Vs. AJIT HARMALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the complainant arises from the judgment and the order dated 3rd March, 2006 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in criminal Case No. (O. A. ) 1767/s/2004/f filed by the appellant-complainant against the respondent-accused under sections 138 r/w. 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act by which the accused has been acquitted of the said offence.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that, the accused had approached him for financial assistance to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- in May, 2004. The complainant paid him the said amount which the accused had agreed to repay within 4 months. The accused did not pay the said amount within four months as agreed. However, in discharge of his liability, he allegedly issued a cheque bearing no. 227299 dated 11. 10. 2004 for Rs. 40,000/- drawn on Mhapusa Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. , Mhapusa, Goa. When the cheque was deposited by the complainant in his account in the Syndicate Bank, mhapusa Branch, it was bounced and returned with the return memo dated 11. 10. 2004 with an endorsement "not arranging the funds in the account". This fact was allegedly intimated to the accused with request to make the payment of the cheque amount. Since the accused failed to make the payment a notice dated 15. 10. 2004 was issued by the complainant calling upon the accused to make the payment within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this notice. Despite the notice, the accused, according to the complainant, failed to make the payment and hence, he filed the complaint along with all the relevant documents.

(3.) The defence propounded by the accused is that on 29th August, 2002 the complainant had requested him to supply laterite stones and had paid Rs. 15,000/-as an advance. In turn, the accused as a security, gave a blank cheque to the complainant. According to the accused since the complainant did not make further payment for the laterite stones supplied by him to the complainant, he demanded the said amount to the complainant and to avoid the payment the complainant deposited the blank cheque duly filled by him in his Bank. The cheque was, however, bounced and a false complaint has been filed against him under section 138 of the Act.