GANDHI COTTON Vs. MURUGANATHAN MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.9.2001 passed by JMFC, Indore in criminal case No. 2419/1999 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "NI Act") on 10.7.1996 alleging that on 8.11.1995 respondent purchased goods valuing Rs. 5, 12,912/- and issued cheque of the same amount of Indian Bank. It was alleged that cheque was presented by the appellant but the same was returned with an endorsement of the Bank to the effect "insufficient funds". It was alleged that after receipt of information from the Bank on 28.5.1996 notice was issued by the appellant to the respondent for payment but inspite of that the amount was not paid. It was alleged that respondent has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act hence, respondent be convicted. After taking cognizance of the offence and after notice to the respondent and also after framing of charge and recording of evidence respondent was acquitted against which the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the learned Court below committed error in acquitting the respondent. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the Case, learned Court below committed error in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant and in acquitting the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Nl Act.

(3.) FROM perusal of record, it appears that to prove the case appellant has filed the document Ex. P/l which is a cheque issued in favour of the appellant by the respondent which has been signed by the Director. Ex. P/2 is the letter issued by the concerned Bank whereby the cheque was returned. Ex. P/3 is the notice. Ex. P/ 4 is postal receipt and Ex. P/5 is the acknowledgement. Ex. P/6 is the power of attorney whereby Rajendra Kumar Gandhi, Proprietor of the appellant/firm has authorized Rupesh Kumar Gandhi as power of attorney. Apart from this, the appellant has examined Rupesh Kumar Gandhi as PW/1, M.K. Zindani as PW/2 and Rajendra Kumar Gandhi as PW/3 while no evidence has been adduced by the respondent except the statement given by the respondent under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.