JYOTISHKUMAR RAGHUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant - original complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and challenged Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valsad on 25.5.2010 in Criminal Case No. 596 of 2009 acquitting the respondent accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act").

(2.) According to the appellant - original complainant, he is doing business in the name of Govind Cement Agency at Dharampur and had business relations with the accused. As the accused was in need of finance, he demanded loan from him. Therefore, in all, Rs. 70,500/- were advanced to the accused. On making demand of the outstanding amount, the accused gave cheque No. 095325 dated 27.5.2009 of Rs. 70,500/- drawn on the Sardarganj Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited, Market Yard, Patan for the amount received by him. On presenting the cheque in the bank, it returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Therefore, he informed the accused about dishonour of cheque and hence, the accused informed him that he would make arrangement for the amount after one month. Therefore, the cheque was again presented in the bank on 2.7.2009, but it returned with endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Therefore, notice was served to the accused demanding the amount of unpaid cheque, but the accused did not pay the amount of unpaid cheque. Therefore, complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed.

(3.) The trial Court issued summons. Pursuant to the summons, the accused appeared and denied having committed the offence. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. At the end of recording of evidence, further statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code. The accused in his further statement explained that blank cheque has been misused. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the trial Court by impugned judgment acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant has preferred this appeal.