Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nagaon in C.R. Case No. 1554c/08 U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short' the N.I. Act), acquitting the respondent No. 2 herein of offence U/s. 138 of the N.I. Act, (respondent. 2 would be referred to as the accused person). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the complainant/appellant preferred this appeal U/s. 378(4) of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the aforesaid judgment alleging that the said judgment was rendered in total violation of various provisions of law, so incorporated in the N.I. Act and also in total disregard of the dictum in the Evidence Act.

2. I have heard Mr. G. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The case, projected by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') in its complaint petition which gave rise to C.R. Case No. 1555c/08, in short, is that 'M/s. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd' with its Head Office at New Delhi, is a member of National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Bombay, Depository participant of NSDL, CSDL, having its Branch Office at ADP Road, Christian-patty, Nagaon, Assam and such branch functions under the name and style "TH Branch" and is run by Branch Manager Mr. Rajdeep Dey.

4. The complainant states that the accused Ms. Sabita Roy had applied for opening a D-Mat Account and Client Account in the aforesaid TH Branch at Nagaon. Such application was submitted in accordance with the procedures, prescribed under the Banking Law. On completion of all the formalities and on acceptance of terms and conditions, specified by the Bank, the complainant had allotted the accused Ms. Sabita Roy the Client A/c. No. DFTH-36.

5. After opening the D-Mat A/c. and Client A/c, the accused Sabita Roy started purchasing trading shares of different companies of line in Future and Option, Derivatives Market and Cash Market since she was already allotted D-Mat Account and Client Account. According to the complainant, up to 18.03.2008, a sum of Rs. 4,56,689.12 was due to the complainant, as per statement in the account in the name of the accused person.

6. As such, the complainant demanded and requested the accused to clear such dues, where upon, on 19.03.2008, the accused issued Cheque No. 899344 of Indian Bank, Nagaon Branch for a sum of Rs. 4,57,000/- which was to be drawn on her S.B. A/c. No. 507099389. On receipt of the cheque, on the same day, the complainant presented the cheque for encashment of the amount, specified therein. However, such cheque stood dishonoured for want of sufficient money in the account of the drawer.

7. When such a state of affair was brought to the notice of the accused person, she requested the complainant to present the same after sometime as she was to arrange the money for depositing the same in her Bank A/c. But the accused person requested the complainant to deposit the cheque once again after 19.05.68. As desired by the accused person, the complainant again deposited the cheque to Punjab National Bank, Nagaon Branch on 19.05.08 for collection of amount stated therein. Once again, the cheque was returned by the Indian Bank, Nagaon Branch on the same ground.

8. Since mere was no other way out, the complainant had issued a lawyer notice on the accused person. The accused received the same on 03.06.08. But after receipt of the notice, she replied through her advocate that the complainant/company is not the holder of cheque. Rather the complaint company obtained several blank cheques through Mr. R.K. Dey, Advocate by practising fraud on her and subsequently converted one of those blank cheques to valuable security in order to recover the amount to the tune of Rs. 4,57,000/- from the accused person vide reply letter dated 17.06.08 which is annexed with the complaint petition.

9. Since the accused did not comply with the direction