SANTOSH BALU KUMAVAT Vs. PANDIT WAMAN KUMAVAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. at Nashikroad, Nashik in Summary Criminal Case No.1808 of 2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent No.1-orig. accused of the offence under Section of 138 of N.I.Act.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that he and the accused are close relatives and the complainant had given a loan of Rs.1 lakh to the accused. By way of repayment of the said amount the cheque in question came to be issued. The cheque was dishonoured, hence complaint came to be filed.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No.1-orig.accused on the ground that the complainant has failed to prove that notice was served on the accused. It is pertinent to note that the complainant admitted in his cross-examination that he has not filed documentary evidence to show that he had issued demand notice to the accused. It is an admitted fact that date of receipt of notice is not mentioned in the complaint. The complainant has further stated that he has not filed postal acknowledgement due receipt to show that notice was received by the accused.