LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-243

SHIRISHKUMAR Vs. BHANDARA ZILLA BAHUUDDESHIYA APANG VIKAS SANSTHA

Decided On April 23, 2018
Shirishkumar Appellant
V/S
Bhandara Zilla Bahuuddeshiya Apang Vikas Sanstha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tumsar in Summary Criminal Complaint Case 408/2006, by and under which the respondents 1 and 2 are acquitted of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("Act" for short).

(2.) The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant") instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, the cause title of which reads thus :

(3.) Paragraph 1 of the complaint, however, proceeds on the premise that two accused are arrayed namely Shri Mahadev Drugkar and Shri Yuvraj Bhutange and they are described as the President and the Secretary of the society who are responsible for the managing of the affairs and business of the society. In paragraph 3, it is averred that accused 1 and 2 demanded an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the complainant to make him permanent on the post of workshop Superintendent. Paragraph 4 of the complaint avers that the complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- in cash to accused 1 on 01.8.2005 and deposited further amount of Rs. 50,000/- by cheque in the account of the society. In paragraph 5, it is averred that the complainant refused to pay the balance amount of 4,00,000/and demanded refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid on 01.8.2005. Accused 1 and 2 agreed to pay the said amount on the condition that the complainant would have to sign blank receipts and the complainant accordingly signed two blank receipts. Accused 1 and 2 handed over two cheques to the complainant. The first cheque bearing 028295 for Rs. 50,000/- was drawn on the personal account of accused 1 and the same was duly encashed. However, the second cheque bearing number 010969 for Rs. 50,000/- dated 21.9.2005 was drawn against the account of the society and was signed by accused 1. The second cheque was dishonoured and the return memo dated 03.3.2006 records the reason "drawer's signature incomplete, joint signature required" and "funds insufficient".