SUJOY GUCHAIT Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and order dtd. 25/4/2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Hooghly in C.R. Case No. 224 of 1997 acquitting the accused/opposite party no. 2, of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I. Act in short).

(2.) The case of the complainant in his petition of complaint dtd. 14/5/1997 in short is that both the complainant and the accused person are potato merchants in their respective locality. As the complainant had sold potato to the accused on credit, the accused issued account payee (admittedly Bearer) cheques, four in number, drawn on the State Bank of India, Tarakeswar Branch, P.O. and P.S. - Tarakeswar, District - Hooghly, bearing cheque nos. 120467 dtd. 28/12/1996, 120468 dtd. 28/12/1996, 120465 dtd. 19/12/1996 and 120466 dtd. 24/12/1996, respectively, amounting to Rs.25,000.00 each to the complainant. The complainant deposited the cheque nos. 120467 and 120468 both dtd. 28/12/1996 with the State Bank of India, P.O. and P.S. - Tarakeswar, District - Hooghly for clearance but both the cheques were dishonoured by the concerned Bank on 7/3/1997 with the remark 'Refer to Drawer'. Thereafter, the complainant presented remaining two cheques bearing nos. 120465 dtd. 19/12/1996 and 120466 dtd. 24/12/1996 to the State Bank of India, Tarakeswar Branch for encashment but the said two cheques also were not honoured on the ground of "payment stopped " by the drawer on 8/4/1997. The complainant then, sent a notice to the accused through his Advocate Shri Probhat Kumar Bag by registered post with A.D., on 15/4/1997 and the accused after receiving that notice dated 15.04. 1997 sent a reply dtd. 21/4/1997 to the lawyer of the complainant through his Advocate Sri Madan Chandra Saha, denying the material allegations in the notice. As the accused did not make payment covered by the cheques, the complainant filed the instant complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) The defence of the accused was that of innocence and being falsely implicated and that he has no debt or liability to the complainant (though not rebutted under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act, by the accused).