NIKESH NAVINCHANDRA BAROT Vs. KANTIBHAI KHEMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant in support of this application for grant of special leave to prefer an appeal. The applicant-complainant filed a complaint alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the first and second respondent. By the impugned order the first and second respondents have been acquitted.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge. He pointed out that from the observations made by the learned trial Judge in paragraph 6 of the impugned Judgment, it appears that a suggestion was given to the applicant that the second respondent-company was a guarantor which was accepted by the applicant. he pointed out that it is an accepted position that the second respondent accepted its liability as a guarantor. He, therefore, submitted that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of the legally recoverable liability.

(3.) THUS, the finding recorded by the learned Judge is that the execution of the said letter is not proved. As the said letter was not proved by the applicant, it is obvious that the liability based on the said letter was not established.