The acknowledgment note appended by the postman and the registered receipt of the post office were crucial in proving the service of notice, influencing the court's decision to hold the respondent guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.8.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Guna in Complainant case No. 2052/13, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant and respondent were acquainted with each other. Respondent on the need of personal expenses took Rs. One Lac from appellant/complainant by way of loan and assured him that whenever appellant is required he will repay the amount. Thereafter, when he needed aforesaid money he requested respondent. On his request respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 254734 of Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Guna of his account No.8787 dated 25.07.2013 to the tune of Rs. One Lac. Afterwards, he presented the aforesaid cheque in Bank of India through its account No.889010110005247 on 26.07.2013 that was not honored by dated 29.07.2013. It returned with the note that respondent was not having sufficient amount in his account. Thereafter, he served a notice to respondent on 7.8.2013 by registered Daak which came unserved with the note that addressee denied to receive the letter. Hence, he was forced to file a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and adduced his evidence along with document.

3. The short question which falls for consideration is whether despite proving his case by complainant trial Court erred in dismissing his complaint.

4. Appellant Yogesh has stated that he was acquainted with the respondent. Respondent was in need of money for personal expenses. On his demand he had paid Rs. One Lac and he has promised that whenever he is required he will repay the amount. Thereafter, when he was in need of money he demanded from the respondent. He accepted his demand and issued a cheque of Punjab and Sind Bank Branch Guna of his account No.8787 dated 25.07.2013 to the tune of Rs. One Lac. Afterwards, he presented the aforesaid cheque in Bank of India through its account No.889010110005247 on 26.07.2013 for collection. On 29.07.2013 cheque was returned with the note that respondent was not having sufficient amount in his account. Thereafter, he served a notice to him through his Advocate on 7.8.2013 which was came returned on 20.07.2013 with the note that addressee denied to take the letter. Neither he received the notice nor paid the amount. Cheque return memo of Bank of India Ex-P/1, return memo of Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Guna dated 29.07.2013 Ex-P/2, cheque dated 25.07.2013 of Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Guna Ex-P/3 on which signature of respondent is on A to A part, registered notice Ex-P/4, RAD Ex-P/5, postal receipt Ex-P/6, and cheque depositing receipt Ex-P/7 have been presented. During cross-examination, he has stated that he knows respondent from 34 years. He has not paid money in front of any one. He got information about dishonored of cheque on 27.7.2013. Thereafter, he has not contacted to the respondent. He has not signed the cheque in front of me. He denied that cheque was not issued by respondent. He denied that aforesaid cheque was not issued from the cheque book of respondent, besides this, no pertinent question has been put in cross-examination so that his evidence could be disbelieved. Besides this, his evidence is well supported by aforesaid documents Ex-P/1 to Ex-P/7.

5. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of M/S. Kalamani Tex & Anr vs. P. Balasubramanian, Crl.Appeal No.123/2021 dated 10.02.2021.

6. In rebuttal, respondent has adduced the evidence of Bank Officer Ramesh Kumar DW/1 who has stated that cheque Ex-P/3 has not been issued by their Branch, but during cross-examination in para No.3 he has accepted that return memo of Ex-P/2 has been issued by their branch. In that notice it has been mentioned that in account No. 8787 sufficient fund is not there, due to this cheque was di