RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated 23rd February, 2009 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C/802/00/T.R./761/00, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons of the charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
(2.) The fact of the case is that the appellant was the lessee in respect of "Bhutnath Medical Hall". The deed of lease was registered and thereafter, the respondents/accused persons renewed the said deed of lease. The accused persons/respondents approached the appellant to hand over the said Medical Hall and a settlement was being made which was reduced in the form of a deed on 27th July, 2000 in respect of the equipment of the drug shop. As per the deed of settlement the keys of the medicine shop was handed over in lieu of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Netaji Subhas Road Branch was issued in favour of the complainant/appellant. When the said cheque was presented before the Central Bank of India, Hathkhola Branch on 28th July, 2000, the same was returned with remarks "Payment Countermanded" and also "Stop Payment". Thereafter, a demand notice issued by a lawyer was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due on 9th August, 2000 and the said notice was replied by a Solicitor vide letter dated 17th August, 2000. Hence, the complainant/appellant prayed for prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, which was numbered as Reference no. C/802/00/TR/761/00.
(3.) It may be noted that Dr. Bholanath Pal was erroneously arraigned as respondent no.3 in this appeal. However, the respondent no.3 could not be made a party in the instant appeal, as the learned Magistrate was pleased to discharge the respondent no.3 from the instant case.;