DEEPAK GOVIND PANMALKAR Vs. NARENDRA D PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for leave to file appeal, filed by the original complainant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.2), Ahmednagar in S.T.C. No.1128 of 2006 decided on 24042009, whereby he acquitted the respondent accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) IT is the case of the applicant complainant that the respondent accused was in need of finance for some construction work and, therefore, he demanded from complainant amount of Rs.1,00,000/=. The complainant paid that amount to the Respondent on 1.6.2005. Thereafter, time and again the demand was made by complainant, but the accused did not repay the amount. Ultimately on 17.12.2005, the Respondent accused issued cheque for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/= to the applicant complainant drawn on Ambika Mahaila Sahakari Bank, Branch Ahmednagar. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured with remarks 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter the applicant issued notice to the respondent demanding amount. However, the respondent, in stead of paying the amount, gave false reply and hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) HEARD Advocates Shri Gangapurwala and Shri Garud, for the applicant and respondent respectively. Both have taken me through the judgment of the trial court, so also record and proceedings and other papers on record. Learned Advocate Shri Gangapurwala relied upon the case of Hiten P.Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee 2001 SCC (Cri.)960 and referred particularly to paragraphs 20 to 23. He submitted that the present respondent had not entered into witness box nor examined any witness on his behalf and that the presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not rebutted.