Point of Law: On re-appreciation and reevaluation of oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, it transpires that complainant has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as ingredients of the offence alleged are not fulfilled.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since all these appeals arise from the same facts and are between the same parties, the appeals were heard together and are being decided by way of this common judgment.

2. The captioned appeals have been filed by the appellant – original complainant under Sections 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgments and orders dated 31.03.2008, passed in Criminal Case Nos. 2713, 2714, 2716, 2715, 2277, 2732 and 2733 of 2004 by the learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhavnagar, recording the acquittal.

3. Nutshell facts are that appellant – original complainant – lodged complaints before the Court that the complainant was engaged in the hotel business. That, on coming into contact with the respondent No. 2, who was in requirement of a place for hospital activity and on approach being made to the complainant, the complainant, gave its place (hotel) on rent for conducting such activity to the respondent No. 2 for a period of 10 months for which, different cheques had been issued, which on being deposited in the bank, returned with an endorsement “Account Closed” and hence, the complainant issued legal notices to the respondent No. 2 through advocate by RPAD, which though served upon the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 did not pay the amount and also not replied to the said notice, the complainant was constrained to file complaints before the competent Court at Bhavnagar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein after referred to as “the NI Act”). The details of cheques, amount and case number etc. are as follow:

3.1 Upon such complaints being filed and subsequent to service of summons, the respondent No. 2 appeared before the Court. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against him. In support, the appellant – complainant has produced oral as well as documentary evidence. Vide impugned judgments and orders dated 31.03.2008, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant – original complainant has preferred the present appeals.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Monarch Pandya for learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the appellant – original complainant, learned advocate Mr. V. A. Mansuri for learned advocate Mr. MTM Hakim for the respondent No. 2 and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent No. 1 – State.

4.1 The learned advocate for the appellant – original complainant has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge ought to have convicted the accused inasmuch as the cheques in question were duly signed by the respondent No. 2 and came to be dishonoured when presented before the bank with an endorsement “Account Closed”. Furthermore, in his submission, the learned trial Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the cheques were issued for discharge of legal liability towards complainant. Further, the signature on the cheques were also not in dispute. In his submission, the learned trial Judge ought to have held, in view of t