JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed at the instance of the original complainant under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., 1973, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar in Criminal Case No.569 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate has recorded the order of acquittal of respondent No.2-original accused by giving benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881.

2. The gist of the complaint according to the complainant is that appellant is a public limited company registered under the provisions of Companies Act and is engaged in the business of automobiles leasing/higher purchase. It would be relevant to mention that the complainant is “Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.” (for short “erstwhile company”) and the complaint is filed by Satish Chandulal Dube, who claims to be the Area Officer of the erstwhile company and as part of his service and the post, which he holds being authorized by the complainant, has filed the present complaint. It is contended in the complaint that the accused No.1 had obtained loan for purchase of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.GJ-10-W-9310, for which, a separate loan agreement was entered between the parties. As per the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement, the accused had to make payment in installments, for which, the accused had handed over post dated cheques having account with the Navanagar Cooperative Bank Limited, Digvijay Plot Branch, Jamnagar. It is the case of the complainant that out of the aforesaid cheques, three cheques i.e. cheque No.582545 dated 19.08.2008, Cheque No.582547 dated 19.10.2008 and cheque No.582548 dated 19.11.2008, each of an amount of Rs.6,450/- were presented by the complainant company for realization of the aforesaid outstanding loan amount. All these cheques were dishonoured on the ground of “insufficient funds”, which were returned back to the complainant with copy of return memo dated 11.12.2008 issued by the said bank. On dishonour of the cheques, the complainant company had addressed legal notice dated 16.12.2008 by registered post A.D. at the known address of the respondent-accused. The said notice was returned back with an endorsement of accused having left the said place. Such acknowledgment was received back on 17.12.2008. In such circumstances, the complainant was constrained to approach the court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar by presenting complaint on 15.01.2009, which was registered as Criminal Case No.569 of 2009.

3. Upon verification of the complainant, the summons came to be issued upon respondent-accused and the summons were duly served. The accused had appeared before the learned Magistrate and his plea was recorded vide Exh.24. The accused had denied the case of the complainant and the learned Magistrate had proceeded with the trial.

4. The complainant had examined himself vide Exh.35 and one witness Sanjeev Indulal Mehta, who has been examined vide Exh.65. Apart from the oral evidence, the complainant has laid documentary evidence, which include the disputed cheques (Exhs.41 to 43), the return memo (Exhs.44 to 46), the legal notice (Exh.47), the postal cover of the legal notice with endorsement of left (Exh.48), the copy of general power of attorney authorizing Satish Chandulal Dube for filing of the complaint (Exh.49), the authority letter issued by the Bank (Exh.66), the statement of the accounts of the accused (Exh.67), the register of cheque return (Exh.68) and the certificate issued as per the Bankers Book of Evidence Act (Exhs.69 to 70), have been placed on record.

5. On closing pursis submitted by the complainant, further statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has raised specific defence that the disputed cheques were given to the complainant as security. The questions, which were put to the accused, were gene