- (1.) The appellant, Mr.Rameshchandra Baregama, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan, District Chittorgarh whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent, Mr. Rameshchandra Joshi, for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short). The brief facts of the case are that according to the appellant, the respondent had borrowed Rs. 1,46,000/- from the appellant. In order to repay the said loan amount, the respondent had issued a cheque, cheque No. 468769, dated 25.03.2004, drawn on State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Branch Kapasan. The appellant presented the aforesaid cheque. However, the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank. Thereafter, the appellant sent a registered notice to the respondent on 25.05.2004. But despite the lapse of fifteen days, the said loan amount was not paid by the respondent to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Act.
(2.) In order to buttress his case, the complainant examined himself as a witness and submitted a few documents. In defence, the respondent also examined himself as a witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 17.10.2008, learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Sudhir Saruparia, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that learned3 Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective; secondly, learned Judge had erred in concluding that merely because the legal notice, sent by the appellant's lawyer, was not signed by the lawyer, therefore, a valid and the legal notice was not sent to the respondent. Relying on Section 94 of the Act, the learned counsel has contended that the purpose of a notice is merely to inform the accused of the fact that the cheque given by him has been dishonored by the bank. The said information was sent to the respondent on 25.5.2004. Hence, it is absolutely immaterial whether the said notice was signed by the counsel or not. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Shri Satyanarayana Gowda Vs. B. Rangappa, 1996 CrLJ 2264 (Karnataka)].;