- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The complainant O.P. No. 2 has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice upon him.
(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 25.1.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Appeal No.56 of 2007, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 26.2.2007 passed by Sri Kumar Kranti Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in C / 1 Case No.749 of 2004 / T.R. No.693 of 2007, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. It may be stated that the petitioner was found guilty and he was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Trial Court below and upon hearing on the point of sentence, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 10 months and he was also ordered to make the payment of Rs.1,10,000.00 by way of compensation to the complainant of the case. The appeal filed against the said Judgment has been dismissed by the Appellate Court below. It appears from the record that the complaint petition was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, which was registered as C / 1 case No.749 of 2004 by the Complainant K. K. Singh, wherein he had alleged that the complainant had supplied bags of cement and iron rods to the accused petitioner worth Rs.1,00,000.00 and as the consideration thereof, the accused ultimately on 7.1.2004, issued two cheques of Rs.50,000.00 each in favour of the complainant, drawn upon ICICI Bank, Jamshedpur. The said cheques were deposited in the Bank on 30.6.2004, but the cheques bounced and were returned with two separate memos dated 30.6.2004 with the intimation that there was insufficient fund in the account. Thereafter the complainant gave legal notice to the accused through his lawyer on 2.7.2004 requesting him to make the payment of the said amount, but the accused avoided to receive the notice sent through registered post and managed to get the same returned back in connivance with the postal peon, with an endorsement that the no such addressee was found in that area. Thereafter, the complaint petition was filed.
(3.) IT appears that the petitioner was ultimately put to trial and in course of trial, the complainant has examined only one witnesses as C.W.-1, who is the complainant himself. Both the cheques were proved as Exhibits 1 and 1/1 and the return memos were proved as Exhibits 2 and 2/1. Amongst the other documents, the legal notice, which was sent to the petitioner and the postal receipt have been proved as Exhibits 3 and 3/1 and the envelop which was returned back, has been proved as Exhibit 4. It may be stated that all these documents have been proved by the complaint himself and no other witness has been examined by the complainant.;