SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant application for leave to appeal has been preferred on behalf of the complainant applicant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., 1973 being aggrieved of the judgment dated 19.05.2016 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act) Cases Court No. 2, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 140/2013 whereby, the respondent Joga Ram was acquitted from the accusation under section 138 of the N.I. Act.
(2.) The application is delayed by six days. Notice of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was issued to the respondent, but no one has appeared on his behalf despite service. I have considered the grounds raised in the memo of leave application and have gone through the impugned judgment.
(3.) The applicant came out with a case in the complaint that the respondent accused had purchased a standard D.I. Tractor from the applicant on 30.01.2008 for a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/-. For the payment of the consideration amount, three post dated cheques for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and the fourth one for Rs. 70,000/- were handed over to the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque No. 086343 for collection in its bank account but the same was returned back with a remark 'funds insufficient'. Thereupon, the statutory notice was issued to the accused who failed to make payment of the cheque amount. Upon this, the complaint came to be lodged in the court below. The complainant examined herself in support of the complaint. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 denied knowing the complainant and claimed that one Gopiram, being an agent of the company, was known to him. He took blank signed cheques of the accused to buy the tractor and then got it seized. The cheques in question were misused by the complainant. The trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, found that the complainant failed to clarify its status because it was claimed in the complaint that M/s. Kusum Construction and Suppliers was a registered finance company and that the amount in question had been advanced to the accused by way of loan for purchasing the tractor but during evidence, it failed to produce any document to show that the finance company is registered or that the accused had taken any loan for buying a tractor. Smt. Kusum, upon being examined in evidence, alleged that M/s. Kusum Construction and Suppliers was running a tractor agency which had been closed down about a year ago. Gopiram brought the accused to the company with the cheques in question. An entry was made in the accounts of the company to the effect that the tractor had been given to the accused. However, the so called account statement was not produced in the court. The trial court held that the complainant failed to prove its status as a finance company or a tractor dealer because no document was produced to prove such status. The court further found that the loan was advanced on 30.01.2008 and the cheque was of a year later which was not believable. Considering this lacuna to be fatal to the complainant's case, the trial court rejected the complaint and acquitted the respondent from the charge and rightly so in my opinion. The impugned judgment of acquittal was passed in accordance with law after proper appreciation of evidence and does not warrant any interference.;