- (1.) This court is hearing this appeal as against the judgement and order dated 23-03-2011 passed by the the then Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Complaint Case No. 965 of 2007 wherein the said learned court was pleased to acquit the accused in respect of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. One Shyam Sunder Goyal being the constituted attorney of Arjundas Goyal Proprietor of M/s. Auto Trade Finance Corporation (hereinafter called as the complainant) filed one case against the present respondent, Tushar Kanti Ghosh under Section 138 of the N. I. Act before the said learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
(2.) In that complaint, it was urged by the said complainant that the said complainant corporation entered into a hire purchase agreement with the said accused respondent in respect of Tata Diesel Vehicle bearing No. WB-11A 1971 and in all 48 cheques were issued. Unfortunately, six cheques were dishonoured on the ground of "insufficient fund". The matter was referred to the Arbitrator and one settlement was effected and also one award was passed as per that settlement. The cheque numbers which were dishonoured were respectively 056346 dated 07.04.2007, 056347 dated 07.05.2007, 056348 dated 07.06.2007. 056349 dated 07.07.2007, 056350 dated 07.08.2007, 360881 dated 07.09.2007, each valued Rs.9100/-. Those cheques were placed on different dates and as I have already told that those were dishonoured for "insufficient fund". The complaint was filed on 12th November, 2007. Admittedly, the last day of filing of the complaint was 6th November, 2007. It may be mentioned that after the cheques were dishonoured, the complainant took different steps as contemplated under the said Act. Process was issued. The accused entered into appearance.
(3.) The accused was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined one witness, namely, Shyam Sunder Goyal and through him the complainant proved several documentary evidence like the power of attorney, letter written by the accused respondent dated 02.01.2007, the original six cheques, return memos issued by the banker both dated 08.09.2007, demand notice dated 18.09.2007, postal receipt dated 18.09.2007 and the Acknowledgement Due Card showing receipt of the said registered letter by the accused respondent on 21.09.2007. The accused did not face the dock and also did not adduce any documentary evidence. He was examined under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he admitted that he duly issued those cheques but those cheques were dishonoured as he did not receive any loan. He even did not deny regarding the acceptance of the demand notice and gave one evasive reply. He pleaded not guilty.;