CUTTACK, India, May 19 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on April 17:

1. The Appellant/complainant has preferred this CRLLP under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment dated 02.01.2023, passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (LR & LTV), Baripada in 1C(c) Case No.128/ 2017/ T.C. No.608/2019, whereby the Respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution story is that the accused person has a business organization in the name and style of proprietor, Maa Sarala Tour & Travels at Plot No.2472/288, Ganeswarpur Januganj, a Balasore. The accused has promised to provide an auction sale of Tata Magic Vehicle to the complainant at the cost of Rs.2,30,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand only). As per the instruction of the accused, the complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on 08.03.2017 and another Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on 28.03.2017 in the SBD Account No.551620110000033 of the accused accused/ Respondent No.2 with Bank of India, Ganeshwarpur, Ganuganj Branch, Balasore through the Appellant/complainant in Bank of India, Kuliana Branch. The accused had handed over a piece of paper mentioning the accused person's and his wife's SBD account number. The terms of agreement were that the remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) shall be paid on the date of delivery of the said auctioned vehicle on 05.04,2017. However, the accused failed to deliver the said auctioned vehicle.

3. On 07.04.2017, the Respondent No.2/ accused on his own accord handed over a cheque amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- bearing No.001730 dated 07.04.2017 of Bank of India, Ganeswarpur Januganj Branch towards dues of the Appellant/ complainant and requested to deposit on 08.06.2017 for encashment.

4. Accordingly, on 08.06.5017 the Appellant submitted the cheque for encashment with Bank of Indian Kuliana Branch in his SBD Account No.5479101100002418. But, the said cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds in the account of the Respondent No.2/ accused.

5. Thereafter, the Appellant/ complainant issued a Pleader's Notice/Demand Notice through its Advocate Sri B.K. Padhi to the accused. However, the registered notice with A.D. dated 21.06.2017 was returned on 30.06.2017 with postal remaks "All Times Closed". Thereafter, the Appellant filed 1C(c) Case No.128 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (LR & LTV), Baripada, Mayurbhanj.

6. The accused appeared on 27.11.2017 and denied the allegations. The prosecution examined and cross-examined three witnesses. On the other hand, no witness was examined by the accused.

7. The learned trial court held that the complainant failed to prove the major averment which questions the maintainability of the case, of difference in the address of the accused in the demand notice for which the case is not maintainable as because Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act has not been complied with. Hence, the accused has not been found guilty for offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and acquitted therefrom as per the provision under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C.

8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the Appellant/ complainant has preferred the present CRLLP.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpJFFW2TPeykHe3GnnXbU%2FdO0eCOzgN4wMxI%2FedtPFG9N&caseno=CRLLP/18/2023&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010241552023&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.