MAN SINGH Vs. RANVEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed, after receiving the leave to file appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant who is appellant herein, being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed vide judgment dated 12/04/2017 in Criminal Complaint Case No.1979/2015 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh whereby the respondent has been acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ' N.I. Act ').

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that appellant-Man Singh filed a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the respondent alleging therein that respondent Ranveer Singh and Mayank who is son of the appellant, worked together as a Contractor. In June, 2014 respondent asked for money of Rs.15,00,000/- with promise that he will return within 3-4 months. The appellant provided Rs.12,50,000/- to the respondent because at that time, appellant could have collected only Rs.12,50,000/-. The respondent received the said amount, but did not return to the appellant within 3-4 months. When appellant repeatedly asked for the money, then on 25/11/2014 respondent provided a cheque worth Rs.12,50,000/- of his account of the City Branch of Allahabad Bank, Jabalpur. When appellant submitted that cheque on 01/12/2014 for encashment in his account of State Bank of India, Branch, Raja Patna, Damoh, the said cheque had been dishonoured by the bank and returned with an endorsement dt. 09/12/2014 that no sufficient amount found in the account of respondent. Thereafter the appellant sent a demand notice through his Advocate to the respondent dt. 19/12/2014 by registered post, that notice received back with an endorsement that the respondent refused to receive the notice. Notice received back on 22/12/2014. Thereafter the appellant submitted a criminal complaint against the respondent.

(3.) Learned trial Court after stating the particulars of the offence to respondent, recorded the evidence adduced by both parties. Respondent put a defence during examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that the case is forged, he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. However, he examined Narendra Singh Salooja as defence witness, who is father of the respondent.