JUDGMENT

N.S. Shekhawat, J.

The present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.08.2010 passed by the Court of Mr. Vimal Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby, he set-aside the judgment dated 18.04.2007 and order of sentence dated 19.04.2007 passed by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli and acquitted the respondent.

2. The applicant/complainant had filed the criminal complaint under Section 138 /142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondent/accused and others in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) Kosli and after holding the trial, vide judgment dated 18.04.2007, the learned SDJM Kosli held the respondent/accused guilty and convicted him for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and vide order dated 19.04.2007, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs as compensation to the applicant/complainant. Against the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, the respondent/accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rewari and vide the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2010, the learned appellate Court set-aside the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2007 and the order of sentence dated 19.04.2007 passed by the learned trial Court and acquitted the respondent of accusation. However, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lacs with the trial Court within a period of one month from that date, which was held payable to the applicant/complainant.

3. The facts of the case are that on 20.07.1998, the Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited, applicant/complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 /142 of the Act against M/s Rajasthan Breweries Limited and other accused. The applicant averred in the criminal complaint that the respondent/accused had purchased barley malt on credit from the applicant on various dates total amounting to Rs. 79,15,149.25/- during the period from August 1995 to March 1998. The respondent used to make payment on different rates. After adjusting the payment towards the principal amount and interest, a sum of Rs. 45,84,677/- was due towards the respondent as on 17.07.1998. The respondent and other accused were the persons responsible and incharge of the accused/Company for the conduct of the business of the company and the company through its authorized signatory issued an account payee Cheque bearing No. 773146 dated 07.04.1988 for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in discharge of the liability. The applicant presented the said cheque for encashment and vide memo dated 13.05.1998, the cheque was returned and the applicant was informed that the cheque in question had dishonoured due to the reason "exceeds arrangement". When the applicant received the memo on 26.05.1998, he made a telephonic call to the respondent to make the payment, but he flatly refused. A legal notice dated 01.06.1998 was sent and was received back by the applicant on 05.06.1998 with the comments that the Company was closed. Ultimately, the applicant/complainant filed the present complaint before the learned trial Court.

4. As observed above, the learned trial Court had convicted the respondent under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to make a payment of Rs. 4 lacs to the applicant as compensation. However, before the learned appellate Court, the learned cou