- (1.)The complainant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.1.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.3 Bikaner, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondent, Vijay Kumar for offences under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act read with Section 420 IPC.
(2.)Briefly the facts of the case are that according to the complainant, Aditya Ram Sharma as part of his post retiral benefits, he had received about Rs. 2,25,000/-. Since Vijay Kumar was known to him, Vijay Kumar sought a loan for his construction business. He had given him a loan of about Rs. 1,00,000/-. In order to repay the said loan, Vijay Kumar had issued a cheque, cheque No. FC-617637 dated 21.12.1995. On 22.12.1995, when the complainant submitted the cheque for encashment, he was informed that the cheque could not be honoured as Vijay Kumar had closed the account. Therefore, on 9.1.1996, the complainant had a legal notice sent to Vijay Kumar. However, despite having received the said notice Vijay Kumar did not repay the said loan. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Act read with Section 420 IPC.
(3.)In order to buttress his case, the complainant examined himself as witness, and submitted five documents. In turn, the defence examined a single witness, but did not submit any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 19.1.2009 the learned Magistrate acquitted Vijay Kumar of the aforementioned offences. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court.