IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant has no right to file complaint against accused when there is no legal dues against accused.

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.4.2009 passed by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial First Class, Nadiad, in Criminal Case No.1786 of 2007, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

2.1 Present appellant/complainant was having an account with Santram Bank at Nadiad. Against the said deposits at Santram Bank, which were under various schemes, a certificate was issued in the name of the present appellant and his family members amounting to Rs.3,00,000 on maturity date, the amount would have fetched to the tune of Rs.4,00,000. The respondent No.2 accused issued a cheque No.482710 in favour of the present appellant on 25.12.2006 of Rs. 2,86,447 of Indian Bank, Nadiad. The said cheque was deposited with Bank of Baroda, Narsanda Branch on 17.1.2007, which was returned back with the endorsement of “Insufficient Fund” on 23.1.2007. After following due process like notice, the appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused. The same was registered as Criminal Case No.1786 of 2007 before the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadiad.

2.2 Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. The trial was initiated against the respondent No.2 accused.

2.3 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined 1 witness and on behalf of defence side, three witnesses have been examined and also produced various documentary evidence.

2.4 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence side, the trial Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges levelled against him by judgment and order dated 21.4.2009.

2.5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant has preferred the Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2009 before the Sessions Court, Nadiad. After considering the record of the case, the learned Additional Judge and Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Nadiad vide order dated 15.6.2010 disposed of the Appeal on the ground that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the Appeal.

3. It is contended by learned advocate Ms. Jyoti Mehta for Mr. Vijay Patel, learned advocate for the appellant, that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law; the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned advocate has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. She further submitted that there are major contradictions between the deposition of Narhari Reva Shanker of defence witness and his cross-examination. Said witness deposed that he had given cheque to the appellant without any knowledge of respondent No.2 accused and he also deposed that there was no legal outstanding of the respondent No.2. This witness admitted in his cross-examination that he was only accountant of respondent No.2 accused and he never issued any cheque without instructions of respondent No.2. Even the said witness did not produce accounts, which were called upon. Learned advocate also read the complaint and oral evidence of complainant at Exhibit 12 and documentary evidence. She also submitted that learned Judge has not considered both the evidence. The accused has examined three witnesses and produced documentary evidence, but the learned trial Judge has wrongly considered the oral evidence of the defence side and has discarded the documentary and oral evidence of the co