PRAHALAD RAI AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for both the sides and perused the record.

(2.) This acquittal appeal arises out of the Judgment of acquittal dated 9 th April 2007 passed by Shri Brajesh Kumar Gautam, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum, in Criminal Appeal no. 285 of 2006, whereby the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 13.9.2006 passed by Shri S.C. Jaiswal, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, in C-1 Case no. 55 of 2001/ T.R No. 330 of 2006 has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court below and the respondent accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as the "N.I. Act"), for which he had been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below.

(3.) The complainant, Prahalad Rai Agrawal, had filed the complaint bearing C-1 Case no. 55 of 2001 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, against the accused Arvind Kumar Sinha for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act. According to the complainant's case, the accused and his wife Smt. Shobha Singh were in business terms with the complainant and a sum of rupees three lakhs was due from the accused as well as from his wife over a business transaction and they were required to pay the same to the complainant, as per an agreement arrived at between them on 30.8.2000. Ultimately, at the instance of the complainant, the accused and his wife had issued four post dated cheques in favour of the complainant and his son Sandeep Agrawal, each for Rs. 75,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Sakchi Branch, Jamshedpur. However, all those cheques are not the subject matter of this case, rather, only one cheque for Rs. 75,000/- bearing no. 114834 dated 24.1.2001 issued in favour of the complainant is the subject matter of this case. It is alleged that the said cheque was presented in the Bank by the complainant, but the complainant received information from the Bank on 9.6.2001 that the cheque was dishonoured due to the fact that the accused did not have sufficient fund in his Bank account. Thereafter, a legal notice of demand was given to the accused on 20.6.2001, but the same was returned as 'not claimed' by the accused and accordingly, the complaint petition was filed in the Court below.