RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for both the sides and perused the record.

(2.) THIS acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dated 9th May, 2007 passed by Shri S.K. Choudhary, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Jamshedpur, inC/1 Case No. 1100of2002/TrialNo.323 of2007, whereby, the respondent No. 2 accused has been acquitted by the Trial Court below, of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act') holding that the complainant has failed to prove that cheque in question was issued by the accused for satisfaction of friendly loan as claimed by the complainant.

(3.) FROM the record, it appears that evidence was adduced by both the parties in the Court below. The complainant has examined himself as C.W.I and one more witness, namely, Sritkant Katak who was the Branch Manager of Singhbhum Kshetriya Gramin Bank was examined as C. W.2. The witnesses have supported the case of the complainant. C. W. 1 Rajesh Kumar Sharma is the complainant, who has stated in his evidence that the said cheque was dated 20.1.2002 which he had deposited in the Bank on 1.7.2002, but the same was returned dishonoured. Thereafter, he informed the accused about the dishonour of the cheque and the accused made endorsement on the cheque which was again deposited in the Bank and was again dishonoured. He has also stated about the notice of demand. This witness has proved the cheque which was marked as Ext. 1 and the legal notice, which was marked as Ext.2. The postal receipt of sending the legal notice was marked as Ext.3 and the cheque return memos were marked as Exts. 4 and 4/1. The reply to the legal notice was also proved, which was marked as Ext. 5. However, he has stated in his cross-examination that the accused had re-endorsed the cheque on 20.4.2002. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that Satya Narayan Sharma is his father-in-law and there was an agreement for sale and purchase of a land between the accused and his father-in-law, but he has denied the knowledge that his father-in-law has sold only 11 decimals of land to the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that the said cheque for Rs. 24.000/- was given by the accused to the complainant to keep the same as a middle-man and to hand over the cheque to his father-in-law when the deal of the land was completed. C.W.2, the Bank official, has proved the signature on the cheque and return memos.