NIPAN DAS Vs. MALATI CHETRI CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant, as appellant, has challenged the judgment of acquittal, dated 19.06.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in CR Case No. 3595/2010. It may be mentioned here that a leave application, under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed seeking leave to file the appeal and this appeal came to be heard after granting the leave. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows;

(2.) The complainant and the accused were well known to each other. In connection with the business needs of the husband of the accused the complainant had lent an amount of Rs 15,00,000 (Rupees Fifteen lacs). Thereafter, the accused issued a cheque No. 285075, dated 24.08.2015, for an amount of Rs 15,00,000 in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque to be credited in his account at State Bank of India, Bharalumukh Branch, but the cheque was dishonoured with a bank memo that the account of the accused has been closed. The complainant, thereafter, issued a statutory demand notice demanding payment of the cheque amount. Since the amount was not paid, the complainant lodged a criminal complainant against the accused.

(3.) On appearance of the accused, the learned trial Court explained the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1881") to him and proceeded with the trial. In the course of trial, the complainant adduced evidence of himself and another witness. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC. The defence plea is that there was no business transaction with the complainant and the alleged loan was never given by the complainant. The accused further pleaded that she has not issued the cheque and that the cheque book was lost, for which, she has lodged an FIR with Dispur Police Station. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence.