Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[1] The present leave to appeal has been filed by the applicant-original complainant, Sangar Karu Bhimaji against the Judgment and order dated 26.09.2014 R/CR.MA/19963/2014 JUDGMENT rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi, Kutch, in Criminal Case No.370 of 2010. The said case was registered against the respondent-accused No.2 for the offence under Section-138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

[2] According to the prosecution case, Before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi, Kutch, present applicant-complainant filed complaint under Section-138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Respondent No.2-accused issued cheque bearing No.43944874 dated 27.05.2010 drawn on Dena Bank- Bidda (Kutch) for an amount of Rs.41,200/-in favour of present applicant-complainant towards part consideration and towards personal use of the complainant. So, the present applicant deposited the said cheque with his bank, but the said cheque was dishonored by bank. The applicant was intimated by the said bank with returned memo. Therefore, the present applicant gave statutory notice on 22.06.2010 under Section-138 of the N.I. Act by registered post and called upon respondent No.2-accused to make payment of cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. The said notice was served upon respondent No.2-accused on 25.06.2010. However, respondent No.2-accused did not reply to the said demand notice. In result of that conduct of respondent-accused, complaint was filed by the complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi, Kutch and the said case was registered as Criminal Case No.370 of 2010.

[6] Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, he denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.

[7] Then, arguments of both the parties were heard.

R/CR.MA/19963/2014 JUDGMENT Learned trial Judge observed that respondent No.2- accused is blind person and there was no transaction took place between both the parties and false complaint has been filed by the complainant against accused. In result of this, learned trial Judge passed the acquittal order in favour of the respondent No.2-accused. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.09.2014 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi, Kutch, in Criminal Case No.370 of 2010, the applicant-complainant has preferred the present application for leave to appeal before this Court.

[10] Ms.Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State read para-11 of the judgment and vehemently argued that it is a duty of the present applicant-complainant to convince the Court that how the applicant-complainant can come out from the observations of the learned trial Judge.

[11] Mr. Vinod M. Gamara, learned advocate for the respondent No.2-accused submitted that he is a blind person and he has no object for his bread and butter. He then submitted that he was wrongly cited as accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi, Kutch. Even today also, through this bogus complaint and application, respondent No.-2-accused is invited by the complainant before this Court. He prayed that the present application deserves to be dismissed and some compensatory amount is required to be awarded to this disabled blind respondent No.2-accused.