H.C.MISHRA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsels for both the sides.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment of acquittal passed by Shri Asif Equbal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Jamshedpur, in Complaint Case No. C/ 1 181of 2001, T.R. No.976 of 2007, whereby, in the complaint case filed by the appellant complainant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act'), the Court below upon adjudication has acquitted the respondent accused, finding him not guilty for the offence charged. The case of the appellant complainant, as made out in the complaint petition filed by the complainant M/s Goyal Enterprises, is that the complainant is engaged in business of steel materials and it supplied steel materials on credit to M/s Everest Electrical and Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd, pursuant whereto, the accused Ishta Narayan Mishra, being the Managing Director of the said company had issued two account payee cheques in favour of the complainant, bearing cheque No. 0956555 for Rs.51,044/- and cheque No.0956556 for Rs.l,10,115/ -, both of which were issued on 14.9.2000, drawn upon State Bank of India, S.S.I Adityapur Branch, Jamshedpur. The cheques were 'deposited in the Bank, but were dishonoured and returned with the Bank Return Memo giving reason "Exceed Arrangements" on 13.1.2001. Subsequently, the complainant served a legal notice of demand on 19.1.2001 to the accused, demanding the amount of the cheques, but when the amount was not paid, the complaint case was filed by the complainant under Section 138 to the Act.
(3.) IN the Court below, the authorized attorney of the complainant, namely, Hardeep Singh was examined as CW-1, wherein he has deposed about the complaint case. He has proved his authority letter which was marked as Exhibit 1. He has also proved the cheques which were marked as Exhibits 2 and 2/1. He has proved the Return Memo of the Bank which has been marked has Exhibit 3. This witness has also proved the legal notice of demand, which was marked as Exhibit 5. Postal receipts of sending the notice of demand were marked as Exhibits 6 and 6/1. The Acknowledgment due has also been proved, which has been marked as Exhibit 7. In his cross examination about the cheques, he has denied the suggestion that there were any interpolation in the dates on the cheques.;