TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 [here-in-after referred to as the NI Act] for dishonour of cheque No. 246648, dated 10-11-2014, drawn on Corporation Bank, Agartala Branch for Rs. 50,000/- against Account No. 130001601000035. It is the case of the complainant that out of a business transaction of Vadilal Ice-cream, the accused had a debt of Rs. 1,50,000/- and out of the said debt, the accused had issued the above noted cheque in favour of the complainant. The complainant had deposited the said cheque twice, but, on both the occasions, it was informed to the complainant that the cheque was returned with the remark 'insufficient fund' in the account of the accused. On negotiation with the accused, the complainant had lastly deposited t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lainant i.e. SBI, MBB College Branch and the copy of intimation [Exbt. 7] regarding serving of the notice from which it transpires that the respondent had received the demand notice dated 02-03-2015 on 04-03-2015. 6. On conclusion of recording of evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC to which he denied the allegations levelled against him by the complainant and declined to adduce evidence. 7. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels of the parties, learned court below held that the complainant had failed to substantiate that the demand notice was served upon the accused within statutory period of 30 days. Learned court further held that the complainant also had failed to establish that she had any enforc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate are based on the evidence and material records as stated and introduced by the complainant herself. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has also tried to persuade this court that since the present appeal is against the order of acquittal, there is double presumption of innocence of the accused. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has submitted that the complainant has failed to substantiate the fact that she was out of station at the relevant point of time. Furthermore, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has invited my attention to the statement made in her cross-examination where she categorically stated that she had no business relation with the accused. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions as rendered by learned counsels appearing for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led to produce even a scrap of paper to support her assertion that she was out of station w.e.f. 12.1.15 to 30.1.15 and in the absence of any documentary proof such assertion of the complainant is difficult to believe." 13. I have meticulously considered the above findings returned by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. I have scrutinized the evidence and documents introduced by the complainant. Firstly, after going through the demand notice dated 02.03.2015, it transpires that learned Advocate on instruction of the complainant had written that she submitted the cheque on 12.01.2015 for encashment, but, on the same date, the banker of the accused had issued a returned Memo stating inter alia that as the fund was insufficient, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r encashment, but, the complainant has not brought on record the said intimation given by her banker i.e. SBI, the reason best known to her. It is also surfaced in her cross-examination that she has categorically stated that "it is a fact that I have no business relation with the accused." 15. In my opinion, in view of such statements made by the complainant at the time of her cross-examination, there was obvious reason for the trial court to come to a finding that the complainant has failed to establish her case that she had any business relation with the accused. 16. On appreciation of the entire evidence, it may also be a possible view that the complainant had business relation with the accused, but, in view of the settled position of ....