UMARANI Vs. RAJESHJAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In criminal complaint bearing case code No.'205600000112014' titled as'Uma Rani v. Rajesh Jain' filed by the appellant Uma Rani to prosecute respondent Rajesh Jain under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereafter referred as'the N.I. Act'), acquittal has been recorded by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalka, vide judgment dtd. 9/6/2016, against which this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) As per the case pleaded by the appellant - complainant, friendly loan of Rs.1,59,500.00 was advanced by her to respondent-accused on 1/8/2010. Though, accused had promised to return the said amount within one month, but he kept on avoiding the matter on one or the other pretext. Ultimately, in order to discharge his liability, accused issued cheque No.008361 dtd. 3/12/2012 for an amount of Rs.1,59,500.00 drawn on Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited in favour of the complainant, assuring that cheque will be encashed on presentation. However, on presentation, the cheque was dishonoured, vide return memo dtd. 12/12/2012 with the remarks'accounts closed'. Complainant informed the respondent-accused about the dishonour of the cheque and he promised to make the amount in cash within 2-3 days, but he failed to make the payment. Complainant then served a legal notice dtd. 18/12/2012 and sent the same to the accused through registered post asking him to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The accused failed to do so, which compelled the complainant to file the complaint on 11/1/2013.

(3.) After recording preliminary evidence, respondent-accused was summoned to face prosecution under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. On his appearance, he was served with notice of accusation under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act on 6/1/2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Complainant appeared in the witness box as her own witness as CW1. Statement of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He did not adduce any defence evidence. After hearing both the sides, learned Trial Magistrate recorded acquittal as mentioned earlier.