SARDAR JAGIR SINGH Vs. RANJIT BARUAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('Cr.PC'), the judgment and order, dated 5.2.2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in C.R. Case No. 154/2002 has been challenged. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, while dismissing the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act') by the appellant, acquitted the accused/respondent from the liability of the offence under Section 138 of the Act on the ground that the statutory notice was not served on the accused.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows:

(3.) The learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offence, issued process directing appearance of the respondent/accused and in response to the said process, the respondent appeared before the trial court. On his appearance the particulars of offence under Section 138 of the Act was explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the appellant examined as many as 3 witnesses, including himself and exhibited certain documents. At the close of the evidence of the complainant, the accused/respondent was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. While denying the allegations, the respondent pleaded that the cheque, issued to the complainant, was a blank cheque and that for want of money in the account, he asked the complainant not to deposit the cheque. The accused/respondent denied to have received any notice from the complainant. The defence failed to adduce any evidence in support of its plea. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record and having heard the arguments placed on behalf of the parties decided that the cheque, i.e., ext. No. 1 was issued on 5.11.2001, in favour of the complainant, towards payment of Rs. 93,600 and as such no blank cheque, as claimed by the accused, was issued. The learned trial Judge further held that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt/liability towards the sale of the truck. By the said judgment it was also decided that the cheque, issued by the accused, was dishonoured by the bank due to 'insufficient fund'. While deciding all the points in favour of the complainant, the learned trial Judge came to the finding that the notice as required by Section 138 of the Act was not served on the accused person.