- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 04th October, 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge(S.D.) & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') in the Complaint No.506/2003, whereby the trial court has acquitted the respondents (original-accused) from the charges levelled against them under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act').
(2.) The short facts of the case of the appellant-complainant before the trial court were that the complainant had good relations with one Shri Suresh Khandelwal, who also happened to be the friend of the accused-respondent No.2 Shankar Lal Khandelwal. In the month of March, 2002, the accused-respondent No.2 Shankar Lal Khandelwal came to the residence of the complainant along with said Suresh Khandelwal and requested the complainant to give loan of Rs.1,50,000/- which he needed for his business purposes. The complainant considering his good relations with Suresh Khandelwal gave a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the said accused respondent No.2 Shankar Lal Khandelwal. According to the complainant, the said accused Shankal Lal Khandelwal thereafter gave three cheques each of Rs.50,000/- bearing Nos. 046019 dated 5.4.2002, 046020 dated 10.4.2002 and 046021 dated 15.4.2002 of Allahabad Bank, putting his signatures thereon and assured the complainant that the said cheques would be honoured. The complainant thereafter presented the said three cheques on 4.6.2002, however, the said cheques were returned by the Bank dishonored with the remark of 'stop payment'. The complainant thereafter sent a notice dated 19.6.2002 to the accused through his counsel, which was replied by the accused through their counsel. Since the accused did not make payment of the said cheques within the prescribed time limit, the complainant filed the complaint before the trial court against the accused-respondents under section 138 of the said Act. The complainant had examined himself as PW-1 and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C by the trial court, the accused also examined himself as DW-1 and his brother Tikam Khandelwal as DW-2 in support of his defence that no such cheques were issued by him towards any debt or liability, and that the complainant had misused the said cheques which were lost, and for which he had also informed the concerned-Bank for stopping the payment.
(3.) The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them vide impugned judgment and order, against which, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant.;