IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that acquittal under Section 256 requires careful judicial consideration, particularly regarding the complainant's absence and the necessity of their presence for a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. The instant four appeals are preferred against an order of acquittal dated 4th December, 2008 in Complaint Case No. 172 of 2006, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court at Alipore, District - South 24-Parganas acquitting/discharging the accused person under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended upto date), and orders of acquittal dated 27th October, 2008 in Complaint Case No. 174 of 2006, Complaint Case No. 175 of 2006, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court at Alipore, District-South 24-Parganas under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended upto date), and an order of acquittal dated 04th December, 2008 in Complaint Case No. 173 of 2006, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court at Alipore, District-South 24-Parganas under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended upto date).

2. The appellant herein was a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having one of its Branch Office and place of business at 51/D, Gariahat Road, Police Station - Gariahat, Calcutta-700019, represented by its Manager, Retail Banking Boutique, viz. Tapas Kumar Das, who was an authorized representative of the said bank, well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the instant cases.

3. The accused/respondent no. 1 filed an application to obtain housing loan on 9th March, 2004 from the appellant bank, which was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.11,90,000/-on 10th March, 2004, vide Loan Account No. LM40941 in favour of the accused/respondent no. 1.

4. In order to discharge of the liabilities arising out of the aforesaid loan, the respondent no. 1 issued four cheques, bearing No. 798129 dated 11th December, 2005, No. 798130 dated 11th January, 2006, No. 798131 dated 11th February, 2006, and No. 798132 dated 11th March, 2006, in favour of the appellant bank herein drawn on the Punjab & Sind Bank, having one of its Branch Office at Khalsa Model Senior School at 135, G.T. Road, Dunlop Bridge, Calcutta-700108 for a sum of Rs. 11,200/-. On presentation of the said cheques, the same were dishonoured by the accused’s banker on 8th June, 2006 with an endorsement ‘Fund Insufficient’ and on 8th June, 2006, the appellant bank learnt the same.

5. On 17th June, 2006, the appellant bank issued a notice through its Learned Advocate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by registered post with A/D at the office address as well as residential address of the accused person demanding to pay the said sum of Rs.11,200/-in lieu of the dishonoured cheque within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

6. On 29th June, 2006, the said notice dated 17th June, 2006 returned “undelivered” to the Learned Advocate of the appellant-bank with the postal endorsement “not claimed” and “N/C” which meant “good” service of notice and valid as per statue. The accused failed to comply the aforesaid notice to pay the said sum of Rs.11,200/-in lieu of the dishonoured cheque. Subsequently, the four abovementioned Complaint Cases had been filed against the accused person.

7. The cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended upto-date) had been taken up by the concerned Learned Magistrate.

8. The accused person was thereafter released on bail by the Learned Trial Court.

9. On 4th December, 2008, the Learned Trial Court fixed the next date for show-cause, but nobody appeared before it at the time of call and, subsequently, the same matter was dismissed for default and thereafter, the accused/respondent no. 1 herein was discharged/acquitted from the said case.

10. Thereafter, the present appellant-bank wrongly approached in the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge at Alipore, District South 24-Parganas under the revisional jurisdiction for setting aside the order dated 4th December, 2008 pa