JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Sonia Gokani, J.

All the appeals since concern the same parties and the questions involved factual and legal being identical, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The facts in a capsulized form drawn from Criminal Appeal No.1507 of 2017 deserve reference hereinafter:

2.1 The appellant is an agriculturist by profession. He and his forefathers also were agriculturists. He has 05 acres of land at village: Vadoth, Taluka: Vadali, District: Sabarkantha.

2.2 He initiated agricultural activities of growing cotton seeds and other agricultural seeds and in this fashion, he earns the livelihood for himself and his family. He has speciality in growing cotton seeds and other agricultural seeds and earning his livelihood.

2.3 The appellant approached this Court against the judgment and order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadali, District: Sabarkantha, whereby in Criminal Case No.613 of 2015, the Court acquitted respondent NO.1 from the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the N.I. Act" for short) hereinafter. It is the case of the appellant that they cultivated 5 acres of land for cotton seeds and other agricultural seeds as per the contract entered into by and between the appellant and respondent No.1Bhavinkumar Chhaganbhai Patel. He was introduced to the appellant by one Shri Mukeshbhai Somabhai Patel, a Commission Agent, who had carried out the business activities of cotton seeds on various occasions.

3. It is the case of the appellant that as per the agricultural business activities, he cultivated and harvested the seeds in 5 acres of land in village: Vadoth. Thereafter, it was processed through Vishwas Agrotech. The total quantity of cotton seeds was 2700 kg. He loaded in total 220 bags through New Takatuka Transport. The transport company issued consignment of 220 bags of cotton seeds, which was received by respondent No.1. It was decided between the parties that the price of cotton seeds per kg. would be Rs.335/ per kg. The total amount was required to be received of Rs.9,04,500/, but the agreed amount was Rs.9,00,000/.

4. Respondent No.1, pursuant to such a contract, had, on receipt of the goods, issued a cheque of Rs.9 lakhs drawn on Bank of Badora, Mota Varachhca road, Surat Branch with Saving Account No.24960100002734 bearing cheque No.000010 dated 24.07.2015. the cheque was issued by respondent No.1 and it was also sent by him. He promised that the cheque would be realized. When the cheque dated 24.07.2015 was presented to the Bank, and the same was dishonoured with endorsement that there was insufficiency of funds as on 31.07.2015.

5. On receiving a written memo from the Bank, the appellant had issued the notice as contemplated under section 138 of the N.I. Act to respondent No.1, through his advocate Shri S.M.Desai on 14.08.2015.

6. Such notice was not replied to. Respondent No.1 had not denied the facts stated in the notice dated 14.08.2015 issued under section 138 of the N.I. Act. Neither the amount had been given nor any response was given of the notice. On expiry of the statutory time period, the appellant had chosen to lodge the complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadali. On 03.10.2015 a Criminal Case came to be registered being Criminal Case No.613 of 2015, where the Court issued summons to respondent No.2 where he appeared on 21.08.2015. His plea when was recorded on 13.07.2016, he denied any liability and, therefore, the matter was posted for recordance of evidence.

7. The examination-in-chief was tendered by the appellant on 03.10.2015 where the appellant had stated that respondent No.1 was introduced to them by Shri Mukeshbhai Somabhai Patel, a Commission Agent, who is residing at village: Mansa. He had been thoroughly crossexamined and after the deposition of Shri Mukeshbhai Somabhai Patel, the Court availed him an opportunity to explain incriminating evidence. After d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document