R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dt. 27.08.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Railmagara, Rajsamand whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused - respondent, Ramchandra, for offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.03.2006, the appellant preferred a complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate Railmagra, inter alia, alleging that the respondent has borrowed money and in view of that he issued two cheques of Rs. 15,600/ - and Rs. 10,000/ - for repayment. The aforesaid cheques were deposited for encashment. However, the same were dishonored. The appellant sent a notice. Hence the complaint under Sec. 138 N.I. Act.
(2.) THE appellant examined himself as a witness and submitted six documents. The accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides and after going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused -appellant. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal by the complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Magistrate has overlooked the fact that the accused -respondent had admitted his signature on the cheque. Once this admission is made, the presumption under Sec. 139 of N.I. Act should have been drawn by the learned Magistrate. However, he has failed to do so. Instead, he has given reasons which are neither cogent, nor relevant for the just decision of the case. Hence, the impugned judgment needs to be interfered with.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment.;