VISHAL SHARMA Vs. SHASHI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/appellant herein, is aggrieved, by the judgement of acquittal pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur, H.P., upon, Case No. 200/2 of 2006, on 31.07.2012, hence has instituted therefrom, the, instant appeal before this Court.

(2.) The facts relevant to decide the instant case, are that during the year 2003, accused Shashi Sharma, who was a registered contractor of P.W.D., and, his close friend entered into an oral agreement for sharing the profits of the business, on 50% basis and as such, the complainant financed the accused and used to deal with all works issued upon the name of the accused. The complainant has submitted that from the year 2003 to 2006, both of them worked jointly and the accused was under a liability of Rs.6,55,000.00, which was to be paid by the accused to him upto Aug. 2006, but he paid only Rs.1 lac through cheque bearing No.072936 dated 25.8.2006, and, for the balance payment he issued another cheque No.789288 dated 30.8.2006 for Rs.5,25,000.00 to discharge his legal liability. The said cheque was presented by the complainant with the banker for encashment, but it was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 7.10.2006 to which the reply was also filed by the accused, but he did not make the payment of any amount. Hence the complaint.

(3.) The learned trial Court, on, finding sufficient material on record, to proceed against the accused, hence, issued notice to the accused. On his appearance before the learned trial Court, notice of accusation for his committing an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stood hence put to him. In proof of the case, the complainant examined two witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the complainant's evidence, the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein he claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. However, he has examined two witnesses in his defence.