RAJ SHEKHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur on 08.12.2008 in Complaint Case No. 881 of 2004, Trial No. 680 of 2008 by which the solitary accused of the case, who is the Respondent herein, was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The facts of the case was that the complainant was approached by the Respondent seeking to borrow Rs. 1,50,000/- as Amanat for his business saying that he will return the said amount in the month of May 2004 and he assured him for giving post dated cheque, one of the value of Rs. 50,000/- and the other of the value of Rs. 59,860/-. The total amount being 1,09,860/- the cheques were, as per the complaint petition dated 30.05.2004. The complainant presented the two cheques for encashment in Canara Bank on 2.6.2004 but the same was returned with information 'in sufficient fund' on 09.06.2004. Thereafter, the complainant demanded the money and the same was assured to be returned within 3-4 days, but nothing came out and, lastly, he sent legal notice to the Respondent seeking him to pay the borrowed amount but that was not done which resulted in filing of the complaint petition.

(2.) During the course of the trial two witnesses were examined by the complainant Raj Shekhar Singh. He examined himself as complainant's witness No. 1 and other witness Ravindra Kumar came to support him as his witness No. 2.

(3.) The point upon which the learned trial court acquitted the Respondent was that there was some interpolation in the date of the cheques and that was probably made by the complainant for filing the case because the date which was appearing on the two cheques, which was bearing the date on 31.05.2004 because if the borrowed amount was to be withdrawn, there could not be any necessity to issue the two cheques. The other reason given by the court below was that on bare perusal of the dates which were appearing on the two cheques, it was evidently clear that interpolation was made in the month of the dates and that was not appearing on the counter foils of the two cheques which were produced before the court while the Respondent was examining himself as D.W.1. Another deficiency which appears also taken into account was of non-production of the written agreement or Amanatee Chittha which has been mentioned in the complaint petition.