9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insufficient, the cheque was returned back. In the said demand notice, the complainant did not state that she was out of station at the relevant point of time. The complainant is found to be very categorical in her statement that on the same date i.e. on 12.01.2015 when she deposited the cheque to her banker, on the same day, she came to learn about the dishonour of the said cheque. In such circumstance, in my opinion, the complainant ought to have established the fact that she was out of station at the relevant point of time and she returned back on 31.01.2015. But, it is noticed that she has not adduced any such evidence in order to prove her absence during that period and staying her at a place other than that of her permanent residen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whereby the learned Court has acquitted the accused-respondent [here-in after referred to as the accused]. 2. Briefly stated, the complainant-appellant [here-in-after referred to as the complainant] filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 [here-in-after referred to as the NI Act] for dishonour of cheque No. 246648, dated 10-11-2014, drawn on Corporation Bank, Agartala Branch for ₹ 50,000/- against Account No. 130001601000035. It is the case of the complainant that out of a business transaction of Vadilal Ice-cream, the accused had a debt of ₹ 1,50,000/- and out of the said debt, the accused had issued the above noted cheque in favour of the complainant. The complainant had deposited the said cheque twice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had examined himself and cross-examined. The complainant had submitted the copy of the legal notice [Exbt. 5/1 to 5/4] and the copy of the relevant cheque [Exbt. 1]; the returned Memo. [Exbt. 4] issued by Corporation Bank to the banker of the complainant i.e. SBI, MBB College Branch and the copy of intimation [Exbt. 7] regarding serving of the notice from which it transpires that the respondent had received the demand notice dated 02-03-2015 on 04-03-2015. 6. On conclusion of recording of evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC to which he denied the allegations levelled against him by the complainant and declined to adduce evidence. 7. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels of the parties, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued well within statutory period of time as prescribed under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the accused has submitted that the findings as arrived at by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate are based on the evidence and material records as stated and introduced by the complainant herself. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has also tried to persuade this court that since the present appeal is against the order of acquittal, there is double presumption of innocence of the accused. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has submitted that the complainant has failed to substantiate the fact that she was out of station at the relevant point of time. Furthermore, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days of receipt of information about the dishonor of the cheque. This is a vital and fatal flaw in the case of the complainant and the case of the complainant is not maintainable on this court alone. Moreover, it is also significant to note that the complainant has also failed to produce even a scrap of paper to support her assertion that she was out of station w.e.f. 12.1.15 to 30.1.15 and in the absence of any documentary proof such assertion of the complainant is difficult to believe. 13. I have meticulously considered the above findings returned by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. I have scrutinized the evidence and documents introduced by the complainant. Firstly, after going through the demand notice dated 02.03.2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidence at Agartala and she received the information about the dishonour of cheque only on 31.01.2015. One more striking point is that, usually, after receipt of the returned Memo intimating the dishonour of cheque, the banker would intimate the person who deposits the cheque for encashment, but, the complainant has not brought on record the said intimation given by her banker i.e. SBI, the reason best known to her. It is also surfaced in her cross-examination that she has categorically stated that it is a fact that I have no business relation with the accused. 15. In my opinion, in view of such statements made by the complainant at the time of her cross-examination, there was obvious reason for the trial court to come to a finding tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
