JUNGSHER Vs. ANITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 19/5/2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nahan District Sirmaur, H.P (learned Trial Court), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before learned Trial Court) for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'NI Act') was dismissed and respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the NI Act. It was asserted that the accused had family relations with the complainant. The accused borrowed a sum of ?95,000/- from the complainant in December 2005. She promised to repay the amount on or before 14/3/2006. She issued a cheque bearing No. 278852 drawn on Punjab National Bank for a sum of ?95,000/- in the discharge of her legal liability. The complainant presented the cheque before his bank-State Bank of India, Nahan from where, it was sent to the Bank of the accused for realization, however, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement of 'insufficient funds'. The complainant issued a notice asking the accused to pay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was delivered to the accused and he acknowledged the delivery vide receipt dtd. 27/3/2006. The accused failed to pay the amount despite the receipt of the notice of demand; hence, the complaint was filed against the accused for taking action as per the law.

(3.) The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the NI Act, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself (CW1) and Prakash Chand (CW2) to prove his case.