Jharkhand High Court
Binod Kumar Lall vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 11 March, 2008
Equivalent citations: [2008(2)JCR465(JHR)], 2008 CRI. L. J. 3353, 2008 (2) AIR JHAR R 653, (2008) 67 ALLINDCAS 761 (JHA), 2009 ALL MR(CRI) 73 JS, (2008) 4 BANKCAS 203, (2008) 2 NIJ 476, (2008) 4 ALLCRILR 528, (2009) 3 CIVLJ 341
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay, D.P. Singh
ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner-complainant Binod Kumar Lall, being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Jamshedpur in Cr. A. 309 of 2006 dated 12.3.2007 by which the O.P. No. 2 Renu Rani Singh has been acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The respondent has appeared through lawyer.
2. Brief facts leading to this miscellaneous petition are that the petitioner-complainant and the opposite party No. 2 are closely related as brother-in-law and sister-in-law. According to petitioner, after the death of husband of O.P. No. 2, he used to help her and during this period a relation of trust developed. The petitioner-complainant has filed the complaint case C/1 Case No. 1187 of 2002 regarding the bouncing of cheque issued by the O.P. No. 2. According to the petitioner-complainant, the O.P. No. 2 taken a loan of Rs. 2,35,000/- from him after the death of her husband. When, petitioner-complainant approached the O.P. No. 2 for return of the loan then the O.P. No. 2 asked for some time and ultimately issued a cheque in question dated 26.11.2002. According to the petitioner-complainant when it was placed before the Bank on 27.11.2002 it was returned showing insufficiency of fund. The said cheque was again presented at the bank on 30.11.2002 and it was again dishonoured on 2.12.2002. Thereafter the legal notice as required under the law was served on 4.12.2002 and when she failed to pay the amount, the complaint was lodged on 23.12.2002. The learned trial Court as believing the prosecution version found and held the O.P. No. 2 guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced her to serve S.I. for four months and further to pay the petitioner Rs. 2,40,000/- by way of compensation.
3. The said order of conviction was challenged in Cr. A. No. 309 of 2006 by the opposite party which was ultimately decided on 12.3.2007 setting aside the judgment of conviction, acquitting the opposite party. Therefore the present miscellaneous petition.
4. We have gone through the impugned judgment dated 12.3.2007. The learned ADJ, Jamshedpur has considered the materials available in the case record. The learned lower appellate Court has considered the factum whether the petitioner-complainant was competent to advance Rs. 2,35,000/- by way of loan to the opposite party at length in which he found that the petition-complainant having no regular source of income nor any business, was not in a position to advance such a huge amount of loan.
5. The learned lower appellate Court, further considered the point of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act in paras 6,7,8and9 of the judgment.
Having considered the meterials on records as well as the reasoning given by the learned appellate Court, We find no ground to differ with the view taken by the learned lower appellate Court.
6. Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition stands dismissed but without costs.