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

2. This acquittal appeal arises out of the Judgment of acquittal dated th April 2007 passed by Shri Brajesh Kumar Gautam, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Ghatsila, East Singhbhum, in Criminal Appeal no. 285 of 2006, whereby the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 13.9.2006 passed by Shri S.C. Jaiswal, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, in C-1 Case no. 55 of 2001/ T.R No. 330 of 2006 has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court below and the respondent accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as the “N.I. Act”), for which he had been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below.

3. The complainant, Prahalad Rai Agrawal, had filed the complaint bearing C-1 Case no. 55 of 2001 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, against the accused Arvind Kumar Sinha for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act. According to the complainant’s case, the accused and his wife Smt. Shobha Singh were in business terms with the complainant and a sum of rupees three lakhs was due from the accused as well as from his wife over a business transaction and they were required to pay the same to the complainant, as per an agreement arrived at between them on 30.8.2000. Ultimately, at the instance of the complainant, the accused and his wife had issued four post dated cheques in favour of the complainant and his son Sandeep Agrawal, each for Rs. 75,000/-drawn on Bank of India, Sakchi Branch, Jamshedpur. However, all those cheques are not the subject matter of this case, rather, only one cheque for Rs. 75,000/-bearing no. 114834 dated 24.1.2001 issued in favour of the complainant is the subject matter of this case. It is alleged that the said cheque was presented in the Bank by the complainant, but the complainant received information from the Bank on 9.6.2001 that the cheque was dishonoured due to the fact that the accused did not have sufficient fund in his Bank account. Thereafter, a legal notice of demand was given to the accused on 20.6.2001, but the same was returned as ‘not claimed’ by the accused and accordingly, the complaint petition was filed in the Court below.

4. In course of trial, evidence was adduced by both the sides and upon adjudication of the case, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly, convicted him and upon hearing on the point of sentence, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to make payment of fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

5. The said Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence were challenged by the respondent accused in Criminal Appeal, which was allowed by the learned Appellate Court below by the impugned Judgment dated 9.4.2007. From perusal of the Judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court below, it appears that appeal has been allowed on the basis of an agreement dated 30.8.2000, which was the basis of liability of the accused and which had been proved by the complainant as Ext.1. The complainant and his son were the 1st Party, whereas the accused and his wife were the 2nd Party in the said agreement, which was an agreement for sale of the complainant’s company, namely, M/s Goyal Wires Private Limited, to the accused on the terms and conditions detailed in the agreement. The agreement clearly showed that the consideration money was agreed at Rs. 4,01,000/-, out of which, Rs. 1,01,000/-was already paid to the complainant at the time of agreement and payment of balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-was to be made and it was agreed between the parties, that the purchaser would be wholly responsible for liquidating all the liabilities of the company detailed in the agreem