S.E. INVESTMENTS LTD. Vs. RATAN LAL REGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sections 378(3) and (4) of Code Criminal Procedure against the Order dated 4.6.2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Special Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act Cases) No. 9 Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 1012/2011 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act' for short).

(2.) As per the facts of the case criminal complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondent Ratan Lal Regar under Sec. 138 of the NI Act in which the learned Trial Court framed charge against the accused-respondent for offence under Sec. 138 of the NI Act and upon affidavit of Shailendra Bhadoriya, the authorised representative of the appellant company an opportunity was granted for examination on the affidavit. In the complaint summons were issued to the respondent but he did not turn up in the Court and lastly the respondent accused surrendered before the Court on 12.9.2013. On that date, he was taken in custody and, thereafter, the learned Trial Court released the respondent on bail. On 8.10.2013 the accused respondent remained absent in the Court, therefore, his bail bonds were forfeited and arrest warrant was issued while initiating proceedings under Sec. 446 of Code Criminal Procedure by the learned Trial Court. The respondent was arrested in pursuance of the arrest warrant and produced before the Court on 8.11.2013 and again he was released on bail on furnishing personal bond of <FONT FACE="rupi foradian">L 20,000.00 but unfortunately, the accused respondent did not appear before the Court on 13.1.2014, therefore, his bail bonds were again forfeited and arrest warrant was issued while initiating proceedings under Sec. 446 Criminal Procedure Code

(3.) In pursuance of the said arrest warrant, the accused respondent was arrested and set to the Judicial Custody and during the custody the complainant was directed to remain present before the Court for cross-examination upon the affidavit but on 22.4.2014 the complainant did not appear before the Court Thereafter, the matter was fixed for cross-examination on 1.5.2014. On that date, neither the Counsel for the complainant nor the complainant attended the Court for cross-examination.