NARAYAN DILIDAS SAHU Vs. M/S. AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the original complainant who is aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by and under the judgment dated 14-2-2012 in Summary Criminal Case 741/2007 delivered by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court 5, Amravati

(2.) Heard Shri S.N. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri S. Ghatte, learned Counsel holding for Shri Harode, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant") submits that the judgment of acquittal militates against the material on record. He would submit that the learned Magistrate has been persuaded to hold that existing liability is not proved in view of a solitary and stray admission in the evidence that nothing was due and receivable from the accused. The learned Counsel would submit that the learned Magistrate ought to have holistically considered the evidence on record. He would further submit that the other reason given by the learned Magistrate to acquit the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") that the return memos are not proved, is equally erroneous. He invites my attention to the return memos on record and contends that the return memos are duly signed by the office of Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, City Branch, Amravati. He would further submit that since the return memos were signed by the officer of the bank, the complainant was entitled to the benefit of the presumption under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.