MURSHID ALAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.2.2009 passed by Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, F. T. C. , 1st, Dhanbad, in Criminal Appeal No. 147/08, whereby in the appeal filed by the respondent accused Javed Alam Khan, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.5.2008 passed by the Court of Shri Santosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C. P. Case No. 1686/05/Tr. No. 1055/2008, u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N. I. Act'), the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was set aside by the Appellate Court on the ground that the notice of demand was not given to the accused within 30 days of the knowledge of the dishonour of the cheques.

(2.) The complainant's case in brief is that the complainant is a raw leather businessman, supplying raw leather to various customers. On 10.2.2005 the accused approached the complainant for supply of raw leather and accordingly, raw leather worth several lakhs of rupees were supplied to the accused. The accused issued two cheques of Rs. 49,000/- each, bearing No. 517185 dated 15.4.2005 and No. 768130 dated 16.4.2005, for a total amount of Rs. 98,000/- in favour of complainant drawn on ABN AMRO Bank, Kolkata. The said cheques were deposited in the Bank which were dishonoured for insufficient fund. The complainant requested the accused to make the payment on several occasions and ultimately the complainant issued legal notice of demand to the accused, but when the said payment was not made, the complaint was filed in the Court below.

(3.) In course of trial, evidence was adduced only on behalf of the complainant. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused in defence. The evidence adduced in the Court below need not be elaborately detailed in the present case, because the only ground on which the accused has been acquitted, is that the legal notice for demand was not given to the complainant within the statutory period of 30 days of the dishonour of the cheques.