TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 06.04.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ('C.J.M.' for short), Tinsukia in C.R. Case No. 1581/2006 dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused/ respondent No.1 herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, ('N.I. Act' for Short). 3. Leave granted vide order, dated 06.08.2010, passed in Crl. Leave Petn. No. 22/2010. 4. The complainant / appellant's case, precisely, is that he lodged a complaint with the court of Learned C.J.M., Tinsukia, on 01.08.2006, alleging interalia, that he was engaged by accused Dr. Hiren Gogoi for a musical show at Dibrugarh. Accordingly, he had agreed for the said work and made all arrangements for organizing the show. As per the terms of the said agreement, towards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined as many as three witnesses whereas the defence examined two witnesses in defence. The defence plea is that he had no liability to pay any amount to the complainant. He issued the cheque on force and threat of the complainant/ appellant herein. 6. In order to decide the case, the Learned Trial Court took up the following 5(Five) points- 1) Whether the accused had any lawful debt or liability for payment of any amount of money to the complainant? 2) Whether the accused issued any cheque to the complainant to discharge his lawful liability or debt? 3) Whether the accused is liable for dishonour of cheque? 4) Whether the accused committed any offence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was issued. According to P.W.1, the complainant/ appellant, the accused/ respondent No.1, who was the President of an N.G.O. namely, 'Digboloy' at Dibrugarh, engaged him, who is a businessman, for an event management of a musical show on 25.04.2006, evening. He made all the arrangements and accordingly, towards part payment of the liability, the said A/C payee cheque vide Ext.1 dated 25.04.2006 was issued in his favour, which he presented to the Union bank of India, Tinsukia against his A/C No.01190013311, on 11.05.2006, but the same was dishonoured with an endorsement, dated 17.05.2006, being payment stopped by the Drawer and 'Insufficient of fund' vide Ext.2, the letter, dated 03.06.2006 of Union Bank of India, Tinsukia Branch and Ext.3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not sure whether the said cheque was to be encashed through his account or through the account of the complainant and accordingly, the payee's name in the cheque was kept blank. He recognized Ext.7, the letter, dated 24.04.2006, issued by the Secretary, 'Digboloy', whereby, the said N.G.O. "agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,15,000.00 (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand only) to M/S Progoti Enterprise, Mumbai on 25th April'06 by 5 P.M. positively". 13. Coming to the evidence of D.W.1, the accused/ respondent No.1, it appears that the complainant/ appellant introducing himself as the authorized signatory of Progoti Entertainment, entered into an agreement with the N.G.O namely 'Dogboloy' to perform the said event for an amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ischarge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. 16. In the instant case, as stated earlier, there is no denying the fact that admittedly the accused/ respondent No.1 issued the cheque without the name of the payee, which the complainant/ appellant (payee) himself filled up and presented in bank for encashment. The evidence shows that the cheque amount was payable in terms of a written contingent agreement, copy of which is, of course, not exhibited, in the event of performance of the function by the artists through Progoti Enterprise, Mumbai, which enterprise was not even impleaded as accused/ respondent or its representative examined by either of the parties in the case. The complainant has not event established that he w....