DEOKI NANDAN JOSHI Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gan-gtok, whereby the judgment dated 23.12.2010 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok regarding the conviction and sentence against the respondent has been set aside and the respondent acquitted of the charge. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of present appeal are noticed hereinafter:--

(2.) The present appellant filed a Private Complaint Case No. 2 of 2004 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 15.02.2003 against the respondent before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok on the plea that the respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 0088891 dated 07.11.2002 drawn on the State Bank of India, Gangtok branch, Sikkim for a sum of Rs. 15,50,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs fifty thousand) in favour of the complainant in lieu of the amount entrusted to the respondent in the year 2000 for purchase of a land at Hissar, Haryana. It was alleged that the respondent, who happens to be a relation of the complainant, was entrusted a sum of Rs. 15,50,000/- for purchase of land at Hissar, Haryana. Initially the respondent informed the complainant that the land has been purchased; however, subsequently it was revealed by him that no land has been purchased. The respondent agreed to return the amount obtained from the complainant for purchase of such land and resultantly issued the cheque in question. This cheque was presented by the complainant in December 2002 in the Canara Bank, Gangtok where the complainant was having his account. The cheque was, however, dishonoured by the State Bank of India, the banker of the respondent for which an intimation was received by the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant contacted the respondent and he was asked to present the cheque again on the assurance that the same will be encashed. The complainant again presented the cheque in the month of December 2002 and it was again dishonoured for which intimation was received by the complainant from his banker.

(3.) It is further the case of the complainant that he presented the cheque in the month of December 2002 for the third time at the instance of the respondent and it was again dishonoured for which the intimation was received by the complainant on 26.12.2002. The vouchers containing the remarks of the bank indicating the reasons for such dishonouring of cheque are placed on record as Exhibits P-3, P-5 and P-6 respectively. All these three vouchers contain following endorsement: