1. By way of present revision application, filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 09th December, 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 06th October, 2006 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amreli in Criminal Case No.1053 of 2004.
2. Short facts of the case is that the applicant herein had given almost Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 herein in the year 1997 and has not returned the said money to the applicant in time. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 had given five cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each drawn on Bank of India and also given writing on stamp paper of Rs.10/-. As per the case of the complainant-present applicant, out of those five cheques, one cheque bearing No.700538 dated 01st July, 2002 when deposited by the applicant in his Bank, the said cheque dishonoured because of insufficient balance in the account of the respondent No.2. Therefore, the applicant had filed criminal case in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. In the said criminal case, written settlement was arrived at between the parties in the Court, in which the respondent No.2 was agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the applicant-original complainant. The applicant had also waived Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.1,00,000/-; for which the respondent No.2 had issued cheque bearing No.1719422 dated 05th August, 2004 drawn on State Bank of Saurashtra. The said cheque when deposited by the applicant on 11th August, 2004, the said came to be dishonoured on 12th August, 2004 with endorsement “insufficient balance”. Therefore, the applicant issued notice on 20th August, 2004 to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 had not accepted the said notice and returned “unclaimed”. Thus, though the respondent No.2 was in knowledge about issuance of notice, neither the respondent No.2 replied nor paid the amount in question. Therefore, the applicant filed private complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Thereafter the trial was conducted against the respondent No.2. Prosecution has examined the witnesses and also relied upon the documentary evidence. At the end of the trial and after hearing the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amreli held the respondent No.2 guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also imposed fine of Rs.500/-, i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of seven days. It was also directed that as per Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respondent No.2 has to pay Rs.50,000/- to the applicant-original complainant.
4. Against the said Judgment of the trial Court, the respondent No.2 had preferred Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Amreli. After hearing learned Advocates for the respective parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, vide impugned judgment and order dated 09th December, 2009 has allowed the said Appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 06th October, 2006 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amreli, in Criminal Case No.1053 of 2004 and acquitted the respondent No.2.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and order dated 09th December, 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2006, the applicant – original complainant has preferred the present Revision Application.
6. Heard Ms.J.K. Hingorani, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Pratik Jasani, learned cousel for respondent No.2.
7. Ms.Hingorani has contended that the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and against the provision of law. She has contended that looking to the facts of the case, the learned Magistrate has rightly held the respondent No.2 guilty of the offence charged against him and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge should not have interfered with the said finding of the trial Court. He has contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly perused the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it. He has contended that when the execution of cheque is admitted the presumption under the provision of Negotiable Instruments is available that the cheque was issued for payment of loan amount and on the basis of the same the trial Court held the accused guilty then the learned Sessions Judge should not have interfered with the said finding of the trial Court. She has also contended that settlement was arrived at between the parties in criminal case before the learned Judicial Magistrate, again cheque was given by the respondent No.2 and that cheque was also dishonoured. Thus, legal dues is established. She, therefore, contended that the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court may be quashed and set aside.
8. As against this Mr.Jasani, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, states that the order passed by the lower Appellate Court is absolutely just and proper. He has contended that looking to the ingredient of provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amreli, has committed grave error in convicting the respondent No.2. The applicant has failed to prove and establish the main ingredient of provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 638 in case of Lalit Kumar Sharma and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another. Facts of the said case is similar to the facts of the present case and law is laid down by the Apex Court, hence, the present revision application required to be dismissed.
9. I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. I have also heard learned A.P.P. Mr. Jani. It appears from the papers that the second cheque issued by the respondent No.2 is in terms of compromise and it did not create a new liability. As the compromise did not fructify, the same cannot be said to have been issued towards payment of debt. In my opinion, the trial Court has failed to consider this aspect and wrongly held the respondent No.2 guilty for the offence charged against him and the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake in quashing and setting aside the said Judgment of the trial Court. I have also considered the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
10. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the Sessions Court was completely justified in setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. I find that the findings recorded by the Sessions Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
11. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the lower Appellate Court and hence find no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the present revision application is dismissed.
12. In view of above, present revision application is dismissed. The Judgment and order 09th December, 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2006 is hereby confirmed. Rule is discharged. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.
(Z. K. Saiyed, J) Anup