RAMKRIT JADAV Vs. SAMIR KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the judgement passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly on 26/7/2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2016 recording an order of acquittal and thereby setting aside the judgement and order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Hooghly at Chinsurah on 17/5/2016 in case no. CR 128/2011 under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) Briefly stated, Ramkrit Jadav entered into an agreement with accused Samir Kumar Das to purchase a flat and paid a sum of Rs.4,97,376.00 towards consideration money. However, the proposed vender failed to deliver possession of the same and agreed to refund the amount received as part of consideration, in advance. Samir Kumar Das paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000.00 by cash and issued a cheque of Rs.3,37,376.00 on 31/1/2011 in favour of the complainant Ramkrit Jadav. The cheque was drawn on Bank of India, Chinsurah Branch. The drawee presented the cheque and it was not honoured by bank due to insufficient fund. The drawee, thereafter, sent a legal notice through his lawyer to the drawer of the cheque within the statutory period. However, by giving the reply to the said notice the drawer of the cheque, who stood trial as accused person, denied his liability of repay any amount to the drawee complainant on the plea that though he issued a cheque, but he made the payment by cash before presentation of cheque.

(3.) The trial of the case being C.R. 128 of 2013 commenced on 13/6/2014 when the accused person on being examined under Sec. 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried. In this case the complainant adduced evidence as P.W. 1 and he was the sole witness. The cheque in question was admitted as Exhibit-1 while Return memo is admitted as Exhibit-2. Notice was issued by the Complainant through his advocate, was admitted as Exhibit-3. Reply to the said notice by the drawer of cheque, received by the complainant was admitted as Exhibit-4.