JUDGMENT :

Arindam Lodh, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused person.

2. This criminal appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 11.09.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sepahijala, Sonamura in connection with case No. CR(NI)02 of 2015, disallowing the complaint lodged by the petitioner before the Court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (here-in-after referred to as N.I. Act).

3. Briefly stated, the complainant is the owner of a business shop namely, M/s. Joy Ram Traders at ONGC, Nimbark under Amtali Police Station. The accused had purchased iron rods on various dates from 01.11.2014 to 18.11.2018 for an amount of Rs. 7,95,000/-. The accused-respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 514189 dated 30.11.2014 drawn on UBI, Boxanagar Branch for an amount of Rs. 7,95,000/- only against his account No. 1779210000091 in favour of the complainant towards the price of rods. The complainant-appellant herein on 22.12.2014 presented the cheque for encashment to his bank, namely, SBI, ONGC Colony Branch, Agartala but the said cheque was returned by the banker of the accused-respondent, namely, UBI, Boxanagar Branch with the return memo dated 23.12.2014 with endorsement of "closure of account".

4. Statutory ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act were complied with by way of issuance of demand notice. Due to non-payment of the amount mentioned in cheque as aforestated, the complainant-appellant had lodged the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act read with Section 141 and 142 of the N.I. Act before the competent Court.

5. The accused-respondent had entered his appearance and contested the suit. Charges were framed against him. The complainant-appellant had adduced evidence as P.W.-1. The cheque was proved before the learned Court. The return memo also was proved under Section 146 of the N.I. Act. The accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to which he pleaded his innocence and stated that he did not issue the cheque in question. After hearing the learned counsels, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sepahijala, Sonamura dismissed the compliant vide judgment dated 11.09.2018 on the ground that the return memo of the banker with endorsement has not been proved in accordance with Section 67 of the Evidence Act.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said finding and dismissal of the complaint filed by the complainant-appellant, the instant appeal has been preferred.

7. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-complainant submits that the finding of the learned Trial Court is contrary to the law laid down under Section 146 of the N.I. Act. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the findings of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while deciding the point No. 1, wherein, it was observed by the Court below that:-

"[14] Thus it is proved that accused person issued the cheque vide Exhibit-1 in favour of complainant with a view to discharge his liability i.e. debt of Rs. 7,95,000/- towards payment of the price of the rods. The suggestion of accused that he was not supplied with the rods is not supported by any evidence and so it cannot be believed that accused made no transaction with complainant or that he did not purchase the rods cited in Exhibit-3. Merely because stock register of complainant were not produced, the plea of complainant and evidence of PW1 cannot be disbelieved. This in view of the above discussion and reasons I am of the considered view that it is proved clearly in the evidence that accused had issued the cheque Exhibit-1 in favour of complainant in discharge of his liability and debt to pay the sum of Rs. 7,95,000/- in favour of complainant.

Hence, Point No. (I) is decided in the affirmative in favour of the complainant."

8. Based on the aforesaid analogy, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel submits that the grounds of dismissing the comp