JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Appellant herein has challenged the impugned Judgment and order dated 17th January, 2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Court Rampurhat in connection with CR Case no. 502 of 2018, by which the Court below acquitted the Respondent No.2 under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. from the allegation of committing offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short N.I. Act).

2. Factual matrix of the case as stated in the complaint is that the accused/Respondent no. 2 herein, Manik Dutta has issued one cheque being no. 232 dated 18.05.2018 in favour of the appellant/complainant to discharge the legally enforceable debt of Rs. 8.5 lakhs, which amount the accused had taken loan from the complainant for the purpose of his business. When the said cheque was presented before the banker of the complainant, the same was returned as unpaid by the bank with a return memo “stop payment” on 22.06.2018. Complainant /appellant thereafter on 25.06.2018 sent one demand notice against the Respondent no. 2 herein through his Advocate which was duly served upon him. Even after receipt of such demand notice, the Respondent no.2 did not pay the said amount within the stipulated period and for which the complainant initiated the aforesaid proceeding.

3. The main defence of the Private Respondent as had been taken during trial is that there was a bonafide family relationship in between the complainant and Respondent/accused person. The wife of the complainant is the elder sister of the respondent herein. The accused was running Medicine whole sale business under the name and style “Matara Enterprise”. He had to go outside frequently for the treatment of his differently abled son and ailing wife, and during his such absence, the complainant and his son used to look after his business and for the purpose of smooth running of his business, accused/Respondent issued some blank cheques containing his signature only, including the impugned cheque and handed over it to the complainant to meet up the legal debts of the business transactions. However, with the passage of time the relationship between the complainant and the respondent herein became strained since May, 2018 over some family related issues and for which the wife of the complainant lodged one FIR against the accused and others on 09.05.2018 and thereafter the elder brother of the accused/respondent filed one eviction suit being no. 73 of 2018 against the complainant and his family members. Now taking advantage of getting custody of one such blank signed cheque, he has initiated the instant Criminal proceeding maliciously.

4. During trial the complainant/appellant herein examined himself as PW1 and he also examined officer of his bank as PW2. One Advocate who issued demand notice was examined as PW3 and the officer of Bank of Baroda was also examined as PW4. The respondent herein was examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter he had adduced evidence as DW1 and one Rathindra Nath Mondal and Rajib Sengupta have deposed on his behalf as DW-2 and DW3

5. Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence and documents of both the parties came to a finding that the Complainant/Appellant herein has failed to establish that the amount involved in the cheque has got nexus with any legally enforceable debt and as such the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act has not been proved and thereby he has acquitted the Respondent no.2 from the charge under section 138 of the N.I. Act.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Respondent no.2 has lodged G.D. Entry regarding missing of impugned cheque after the dishonour of the said cheque, in order to avoid proceeding under section 138 of the N.I. Act and such information regarding missing cheque was not informed to the concerned bank nor to the present Appellant, who is the payee of the said cheque. The Respondent no. 2 failed