IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court must respect trial court findings of acquittal unless substantial errors are demonstrated, maintaining the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-original complainant under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.1.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court-1, Surat (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 491 of 2003, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (“N.I. Act” for short).

2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that the complainant is doing business of manufacturing gray cloths and the respondent no. 1 is a Firm doing business as Shroff and Commission Agent and the respondents-2 and 3 are the partners of the said firm.

2.1 The complainant was receiving the payment by cheques from the parties to whom he was selling his cloths and for the need of immediate payment he was giving his cheques and drafts to the respondent-1 firm and the respondents were after deducting their commission, were making payment to the complainant and that's how the transactions were made. The complainant was giving the drafts and cheques to the respondents and the respondents were issuing cheque/s against the said drafts and cheques, and for such transaction one cheque of Rs.93,840/- being Cheque No. 89522 of Surat Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. dated 23/1/2003 was issued by the respondents in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was deposited in the account of the complainant in Bombay Mercantile Bank Ltd. on 5/2/2003 upon the instructions from the respondents.

2.2 The said cheque has been dishonoured on 7/2/2003 with an endorsement “insufficient funds.” A Notice U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued by the complainant on 10/2/2003 and the reply was given by the respondents on 18/2/2003 and as the payment has not been made within the Notice period, the complaint was filed in the trial Court, Surat U/s. 138 of the N.I. Act.

2.3 In response to the complaint, the process was issued against the respondents and they have appeared before the trial Court and have pleaded not guilty to the charge and thereafter, the oral as well as documentary evidence was led from both the parties and after recording the evidence, the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 21.1.2008 passed in Criminal Case No. 491 of 2003 acquitted the respondents.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 21/1/2008 in Criminal Case No. 491/2003 by the trial Court, the appellant has preferred present appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Jayesh A Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Harshadray A. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent accused.

4. Mr. Jayesh Dave, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant original complainant has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error of law and facts both while interpreting the contents of the notice and the complaint and also the oral evidence produced before the Court and the trial Court has completely overlooked the said piece of evidence produced by the complainant. He has also submitted that the appellant has proved his case by producing relevant material before the trial Court. He has submitted that the impugned cheque issued by the respondents and the signature on the cheque was not disputed by the respondents and therefore, initial burden is already proved before the trial Court beyond reasonable doubt however, the evidence of the complainant and the documentary evidence like the notice and the complaint is not properly appreciated by the trial Court in its true and proper spirit, while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

4.1 Mr. Jayesh Dave, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also submitted that the respondent no. 1 is a corporation run by the partnership firm and the partners have been joined in the present proceedings however, the said fact of the case w