ISHWARSINH RAMSINH PAWAR Vs. WARSHA DADARAO HIWRALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is to the judgment and order dated 30-6-2008 in Summary Criminal Case 6288/2005 delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court 6, Amravati, by and under which the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") is acquitted of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

(2.) Heard Shri A.J. Mirza, learned Advocate holding for Shri Masood Shareef, Advocate for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant") and Shri R.V. Shiralkar, learned Advocate for the accused.

(3.) Shri A.J. Mirza, learned Advocate submits that the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate are unsustainable. The import and implication of Section 139 of the Act is not appreciated correctly, is the submission. The receipt (Exhibit 68) and the issuance of the disputed cheque (Exhibit 67) cumulatively were sufficient to activate the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, is the submission. Shri A.J. Mirza, learned Advocate would then submit that the failure of the accused to reply the statutory notice would also be a circumstance against the accused.