The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, all the required ingredients must be fulfilled, and strict interpretation is required for penal statutes. The court also emphasized that criminal liability is attributed to the individual person alleged to have committed the offence.

ORDER :

1. This Court noticed that the parties appearing in these three different applications are same, involving same set of facts and issues, hence, all these three applications are heard together.

2. These applications are filed by the original complainant seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.04.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2018 whereby the judgment and order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhidham, Kutch in Criminal Case No. 4022 of 2011 recording order of acquittal came to be confirmed.

3. Heard Ms. Shubha B. Tripathi, learned advocate on record appearing for the applicants, Mr. Manthan V. Shukla, learned advocate on record appearing for respondent No. 2-original accused and Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the respondent-State.

4. Ms. Shubha Tripathi, learned advocate on record for the applicant has invited attention of this Court to the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court while recording the order of acquittal. She has submitted that the original complainant and the accused were friends and on various occasions the complainant had landed money to respondent No. 2. It is her case that the respondent No. 2 had assured the complainant to repay such amount by installments. She further submitted that it was against such outstanding amount, the respondent No. 2-original accused had issued three cheques being cheque number-724946 dated 23.04.2011, 724948 dated 23.04.2011 and 724947 dated 23.04.2011 each for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- drawn on the Gandhidham Co-operative Bank Limited, Gandhidham Branch. Such three cheques were issued in the name of the complainant. She had further submitted that all the three cheques were presented through his account with State Bank of India, Gandhidham Branch, Gandhidham for realization of the said amounts. However, such amount was not realized as the cheques were dishonoured by the drawee bank. The complainant was in receipt of the memo issued by the State Bank of India dated 13.10.2011 about cheque return and the reasons stated in the said memo was on the ground of “insufficient fund.” She further submitted that on 24.10.2011, legal notice was addressed to the respondent No. 2, whereby, the respondent No. 2 was called upon to make good the payment within a period of 15 days, failing which, appropriate legal action was to be initiated. Though, the said notice was served upon the accused by the registered post AD on 24.10.2011, the accused choose not to respond to such notice. In such circumstances, the complainant was constrained to approach the concerned Court for lodging three different complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

5. Ms. Shubha Tripathi, learned advocate further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No. 2 and accused were known to each other since long and the accused had in fact not disputed about issuance of cheque. She further submitted that the only defence which was put forth by the accused was that such cheques were given towards collateral security and not towards any legal debt or liability. In light of the aforesaid fact, she submitted that learned Trial Court ought to have drawn presumption in favour of the complainant. She further submitted that inspite of service of legal notice upon the accused and accused having not responded to such notice, the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act will fulfilled. She therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court ought not to have rejected the complaint.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Manthan V. Shukla, learned advocate on record appearing for respondent No. 2 has invited attention of this Court to the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the complaint. He has submitted that the accused had raised specifi