H.C.Mishra, J. Heard learned counsels for both the sides and perused the record.

2. This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the Judgment of acquittal dated 14th December 2007 passed by Sri Uttam Anand, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case no. 379 of 2000 / Trial No.1328 of 2007, whereby, upon adjudication of the case, the Court below has found that the complainant has not been able to prove the case and bring home the acquisition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and has acquitted the accused of the acquisition.

3. According to the complainant's case, as made out in the complaint petition filed by him, it appears that the complainant is a businessman having a proprietorship business of medicines. The complainant sold medicines to the accused vide Bill No. 24 dated 17.3.1999 amounting to Rs. 18,398.86/-and Bill No. 001 dated 10.5.1999 amounting to Rs. 55,197.66/-total being Rs. 73,596.52/-, on credit and said medicines were delivered to the accused, who promised to repay the credited amount after one month. After several reminders, the accused issued a cheque drawn upon Vijaya Bank, Dhanbad Branch for an amount of Rs. 73,596.52/-which the accused had issued as the proprietor of Ritika Enterprises, Dhanbad in favour of the complainant, being cheque No. 0104386 dated 1.2.2000. The complainant deposited the said cheque in his account in UCO Bank , Bistupur Main Branch at Jamshedpur but the same was dishonored showing the reason “insufficient fund”, which was intimated to the complainant by the Bank on 19.3.2000. The complainant thereafter sent Legal Notice under registered post and Under Certificate of Posting, through his lawyer, requesting to pay the amount within 15 days, but in spite thereof, the amount was not paid and hence the complaint petition was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, which was registered as C/1 Case no. 379 of 2000.

4. It appears that the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation, in which, it is inter-alia stated that the accused had given him an undated cheque in the month of March 1999, in which, the complainant himself had put the date with the consent of the accused. However, it may pointed out that this fact was not stated in the complaint petition. It appears that upon recording the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and finding the case prima-facie true against the accused, summons were issued to the accused. In course of trial, evidences were adduced by both the sides and ultimately, upon adjudication, the Judgment of acquittal was passed by the Court below, which has been impugned in the present appeal.

5. From perusal of the record, it appears that the defence of the accused is that the complainant was the Stockist of Combat Drugs Limited and the accused’s firm Ritika Enterprises was also appointed as Institutional Supplier at Dhanbad vide letter no.5.2.1997, in which, one of the terms was that the accused had to send one blank cheque with the first order to be placed with Combat Drugs Limited. The defence of the accused is that the said blank cheque, which was given by the accused to Combat Drugs Limited, somehow came in the hands of the complainant and the same cheque has been used by the complainant by filling it in his own pen and presenting in the Bank.

6. From the evidence of the complainant, who has examined himself as C.W.1, it is apparent that the complainant has stated in his examination-in-chief itself that the complainant himself had filled up the cheque in his own handwriting. He has proved the cheque, which was marked as Exhibit 3. The complainant has also stated that he is the Super Stockist of Combat Drugs Limited, Hyderabad. In his cross examination, this witness has further admitted that he had deposited the cheque in the month of February 2000, the cheque was undated and the cheque was given to him in the month of March 1999 itself.

7.