MOOLCHAND Vs. BHAIRULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no wrong without a remedy. Where there is a legal right, there is a remedy. The law wills that in every case where a man is wronged and endamaged he must have a remedy. The principle of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium is recognised as a fundamental principle of the theory of law and philosophy. It is the Court's responsibility to protect and preserve the right of parties and to support them, rather than refuse them relief.

(2.) By way of passing the impugned judgment dtd. 24/5/2022, the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the accused-respondent against the judgment dtd. 27/2/2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Newai, District Tonk in Criminal Case No. 27/2013 and acquitted the accused respondent from the charge under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 on a technical ground that a premature complaint was filed by the complainant-appellant.

(3.) The facts lie on a narrow compass that a cheque of Rs.3,50,000.00 was issued by the accused-respondent in favour of the complainant-appellant and when the said cheque was presented in the Bank, the same was dishonoured on the ground of "no balance" in the bank account of the accused-respondent. Counsel submits that after receiving the aforesaid intimation, a legal notice under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 was given to the accused-respondent by the complainant-appellant on 28/8/2012 and the same was received by the accused-respondent on 1/9/2012 and thereafter, the accused-respondent submitted reply to the aforesaid legal notice on 6/9/2012 and denied the transaction and issuance of the cheque. Counsel submits that thereafter, a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 was submitted by the appellant against the accused-respondent before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Newai, District Tonk on 14/9/2012. Counsel submits that the accused-respondent faced trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881, thereafter, he was found guilty for the aforesaid offence by the learned trial Judge and he was convicted under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 vide judgment dtd. 27/2/2018. He was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,00,000.00.