MANJEET SINGH S/O SH. TRILOK SINGH BY CASTE SIKH, RESIDENT OF 10/50, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR Vs. RANJEET SINGH S/O SHRI SARDAR TRILOK SINGH, BY CASTE SIKH, RESIDENT OF A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.15/2013 whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused-respondent under Section 374 Cr.P.C. and by setting aside the judgment and order dated 5.10.2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.30, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.61/2009 acquitted the respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Learned trial Court after convicting the respondent-accused for aforesaid offence sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. three lacs and in default thereof to further serve simple imprisonment for one month. It was further ordered that out of Rs. three lacs to be paid as fine, an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- would be paid to the complainant-appellant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- be deposited in the exchequer. It is further to be noted that in appeal an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent-accused with a prayer to produce evidence in defence which was allowed by the appellate Court vide order dated 31.7.2013 and in defence Shri Jaspal Singh and Smt. Gurjeet Kaur were examined on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) From the evidence available on record and the admissions made by the parties dispute does not exist between them about following facts:-

(3.) A complaint for offence under Section 138 of the Act came to be filed by the appellant against the respondent with the aforesaid averments with a prayer that respondent may be convicted for aforesaid offence and an amount double the cheque amount may be awarded to the appellant as compensation. Respondent appeared before the trial Court through his counsel and following two defences were taken by him:-