9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al can be registered], challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 12/01/2016 passed by the Court of JMFC, Shivpuri (MP) in Criminal Case No.2280 of 2015, by which the respondent- accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short '' the NI Act'') (2) Brief facts of the case, in short, are that respondent- accused is running a business of contract and he used to borrow cement and other materials from the shop of complainant -appellant (Firm). On account of this, both respondent and appellant were in good terms in regard to business transaction. On 29/07/2015, accused had taken some bags of JP cement worth Rs. 50,000/-vide bill no.51 from the complainant- Firm and issued a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said notice dated 07/09/2015 has been received by the respondent- accused on 10/09/2015 even after the borrowed amount was not returned back by the accused-respondent, but this fact has also not been considered by the Court of JMFC. The Bill Ex.P6 has been merely discarded by the learned JMFC on the ground that the respondent- accused has denied the authenticity of the bill and it does not either bear signature of the complainant or the accused, therefore, on the basis of said Bill, it cannot be said that there is any due of borrowed amount on the respondent- accused. The learned JMFC has not properly appreciated the evidence and came to a conclusion by passing the impugned order that no case is made out against the accused-responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of acquittal, hence, prayed for dismissal of this appeal. (5) Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents available on record and impugned judgment, as well. (6) From perusal of record, it is apparent that in case of failure of producing documentary evidence, it cannot be considered in respect of proprietor that he is the sole proprietor of Firm and on that basis, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable. No documentary evidence in respect of being a sole proprietor of the Firm on behalf of complainant-appellant has been produced before the Court and from the record, it reveals that the cheque in question has been issued in the name of complainant- Firm and the only bill Ex.P6 whose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
