KRISHAN KUMAR NANDA Vs. RAMAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) is directed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.09.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, for seeking leave to file appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by learned trial Court in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are that the accused Raman Kumar was known to the applicant-complainant and he was in the dire need of money and for the purpose of financial help, he had approached the applicant for loan of Rs.45,000/-. This amount was required for the domestic purpose. It was on his request, complainant had agreed to pay him the said loan amount. It was stated that in discharge of his legal and financial liability, accused issued a cheque bearing No.781589 dated 05.01.2012 which was drawn on Syndicate Bank, Branch Panchkula for the amount of Rs.45,000/- in his favour. The copy of cheque was Annexure C-1. It was stated that complainant when presented the said cheque before the Bank i.e. State Bank of Patiala, District Court, Sector 17, Chandigarh for encashment, the same was returned to him with the remarks "Account Dormant". The memo was attached as Annexure C-2. It was stated that after the receipt of information of the dishonouring of the cheque, a legal notice was issued to the complainant dated 31.01.2012 through registered post through his counsel. The copy of the legal notice and postal receipt were Annexures C-3 and C-4. The said legal notice was duly served upon the accused. It is alleged that despite the receipt of the notice, the accused failed to repay the amount which was to be paid to the complainant. It was stated that present complaint had been filed within statutory period and the accused is liable to be prosecuted as per the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant-applicant failed to bring home the guilt against the accused-respondent. Evidence led by the applicant was not found sufficient for recording the conviction of the accused. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed and the respondent-accused was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Hence this application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., seeking leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.