Raghoram vs Haresingh

(1). This is a petition under Section 378(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29.08.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badwah, District West Nimar in criminal case No.721/2014 whereby the respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

(2). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant/ applicant that he has filed a private complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of N.I. Act and he has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt but the trial court has wrongly acquitted the respondent/accused for the aforesaid charge. It is also submitted that signature of the respondent in the said cheque is undisputed fact. It is further submitted that there was no business transaction between the parties, in which the money was ever advanced by the complainant to the accused. He has stated that he has given friendly loan of Rs.1,11,000/- to the accused and for payment of the aforesaid amount the respondent has issued two cheque No.571999 of Rs. 61,000/- and 571998 of Rs.50,000/- but he was not having bank account in his name, so, he requested the respondent to issue the cheque in the bank account which is operated in the name of Narmada Dugdhalay Sanawad. Therefore, it is clear that the cheques were issued in his favour. Hence he has no obligation to prove that he is proprietor of Narmada Dugdhalay Sanawad or he has to file complaint as a proprietor of Narmada Dugdhalay Sanawad but the trial court has wrongly interpreted the legal position regarding the cheque issued in proprietor firm and acquitted the respondent. Hence, he prayed for grant to leave of appeal against the impugned judgement.

(3). I have heard appellant and perused the record and impugned judgment.

(4). Considering the statement of the applicant/complainant and the documents available on record and coupled with the fact that the respondent has not denied that he has received loan amount from the applicant and issued cheque in question in favour of the applicant for the payment of the aforesaid amount. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case in which permission for grant of leave to appeal can be allowed. Accordingly, application filed by the applicant under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.is allowed and permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted, meaning thereby, the matter has to be admitted for final hearing.

(5). Appeal filed as a consequence of this order be registered and proceeded as per rules, as admitted.

(6). On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each against the respondent. He is also directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount in the satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court on 17.09.2019 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.

(7). With the aforesaid, M.Cr.C.No.9983/2017 is allowed and is accordingly, disposed of.

Certified copy, as per rules.