HIRU DAS Vs. RANJAN DUTTA CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 2.

(2.) This is an appeal under Sec. 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order dtd. 25/11/2009, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, in CR Case No. 2802/2006, acquitting the accused from the said case.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No. 1, as an accused, took a loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees five lakhs) only from the appellant by executing a hand note with an assurance to repay the amount within December, 2004. But the accused failed to repay the loan amount within the stipulated period and issued another hand note in the month of March, 2005 stating that he would repay the loan amount within 1 (one) month. But, even after several request made by the appellants, the accused did not make any payment and thereafter he issued 5 (five) numbers of account payee cheques to the appellant for the total loan amount of Rs.5,00,000.00. The appellant presented the said 5 (five) cheques in UBI, Silchar Branch, on 21/6/2005. But on 12/7/2005, the appellant was informed that the said cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient fund and returned those cheques vide return memo dtd. 28/6/2005. The appellant informed about the dishonoured of cheques to the accused/respondent, but the accused did not respond and hence, the appellant had to served a legal notice to the accused through Registered post on 15/7/2005 making a demand for the said loan. The notice was issued within 15 (fifteen) days from receipt of the information of dishonoured of cheques. But, on 18/7/2005, the accused refused to accept the notice and on 22/7/2005, the parcel containing the notice was returned to the appellant. The accused, however, did not pay any amount even after expiry of 15 (fifteen) days from his refusal to accept the legal notice sent by the appellant.