The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a legally enforceable debt in cases involving cheque payments and the presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

Being unsuccessful in two successive occasions before the learned Trial Court, the appellant/complainant has knocked at the door of this Court for his redress. According to the appellant, learned Trial Court failed to account the evidence of PW 4 and DW 2 in its proper perspectives. Mainly the case of the complainant/appellant before this Court is such that the learned Trial Court lost sight of what is credit bills and so, came to the finding that the respondent had sufficient amount in the concerned bank. Accordingly, he has prayed for setting aside the last impugned judgement of the learned Trial Court and to convict the respondent.

2. The case of the respondent before this Court is such that learned Trial Court had considered all the evidences in its proper perspective and after being remanded by the Hon'ble Court, the learned Trial Court has considered the same and also came to some finding assigning reasons therein. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

3. Sieving out unnecessary details, the prosecution's case in a capsulated form is such that the accused/respondent and the complainant/appellant had business transaction for a pretty long time. The accused/respondent used to purchase certain quantity of articles from the complainant in the month of April 2004 to December 2004 on credit after observing all formalities. The respondent paid a very nominal amount by way of instalments from time to time, but at the end of December 2004 the balance became Rs. 3,98,725/- which was due to the complainant and was supposed to be paid by the appellant/accused. After a long persuasion, however, the respondent issued ten post dated cheques bearing No. 532262 to 532271 from 07.02.2005 to 11.04.2005 of various denominations with a view to settling the dues. He also requested the complainant to deposit the cheques in the first week of February, 2005. But, thereafter he has requested the complainant/appellant not to deposit the same for a period of three months. Now the dispute cropped up when the complainant/appellant had published an advertisement in the local newspaper ‘The Daily Telegram’ on 17.04.2005, which contained that the aforesaid cheques had been lost between Gurudwara Lane and Allahabad Bank, Port Blair. It was also stated in the notice that the accused/respondent instructed the bank to stop payment in respect of the aforesaid cheques. After noticing the said advertisement, the complainant/appellant considered the same as a trick to frustrate his claim and so he also published a notice on 21.04.2005 denying the contents of the notice published by the accused/respondents. Thereafter he had sent a notice through his lawyer and subsequently presented the ten post dated cheques, but those were bounced on the ground ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. After observing legal formalities, he had instituted the case before the learned Court below.

4. It appears from the impugned judgement that the learned Trial Court had recorded evidence of the complainant and his witnesses along with the evidence of the accused/respondent and his witnesses and thereafter made a threadbare discussion and considering the every nitty-gritty of the case, had dismissed the allegation of the complainant and acquitted the accused/respondent.

5. It is pertinent to mention that initially the same Court has also passed a judgement giving clean-chit to the accused/respondent. The complainant/appellant carried an appeal before a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the said Coordinate Bench was pleased to remand the matter before the learned Trial Court with a direction to consider the evidence of the DW 2 on merit and to pass a reasoned order.

6. On the basis of such order of the Coordinate Bench, the complaint case has been given a rebirth.

7. At the time of hearing the argument of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/appellant, triggered at the issue of the ignorance of the learned Trial Court so far