LAXMI STEEL INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these criminal leave to appeals arise out of disputes between the same parties and involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) Both these criminal leave to appeals under Section 378(4) are directed against the order dated 7-1-2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (in short the "trial Court" hereinafter) in Complaint Cases No. 141/01 and 140/01 respectively, where by the trial Court acquitted accused second respondent Surendra Pal Singh bf the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "the Act" hereinafter). Aggrieved by the order of acquittal impugned, the complainant seeks leave to appeals to this Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the accused second respondent. It was a complaint case by the private firm therefore, learned public prosecutor has nothing to say in the matter. I have carefully gone through the material placed on record.