ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The applicant-accused is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the 8th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bharuch in Criminal Case No. 12158 of 2005, which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Bharuch.

2. The facts of the case are that original accused No.1 had given two cheques to the complainant and when those cheques were deposited by the complainant in the bank, the same were dishonoured. The complainant issued notice dated 29.7.2005 and as the applicant-original accused did not pay that amount, he filed Criminal Case No. 12158 of 2005.

2.1. The case of the complainant is that, he is serving in the L.I.C. and the accused is working as an agent of the L.I.C. They both were known to each other and had good relation. The accused was in need of money for his business purpose. He demanded Rs. two lakhs. The complainant paid Rs. 2 lakhs to the accused. The accused gave two cheques to the complainant on 15.7.2005. These cheques were deposited in the bank by the complainant on 25.7.2005, the same were dishonoured and returned on 26.7.2005 with an endorsement 'Insufficient Fund'. The complainant learnt about the same on 27.7.2005. He gave notice on 29.7.2005, which was served to the accused-applicant herein on 4.8.2005. As the applicant-accused did not pay the amount, the complaint was filed.

2.2. The learned 8th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bharuch, taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, recorded the conviction and awarded six months' simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, further two months' simple imprisonment. The learned JMFC also ordered that the accused shall pay a sum of Rs. two lakhs within 60 days from the date of the order to the complainant under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.3. Various contentions were raised before the learned JMFC on behalf of the accused in written submissions filed at Exh. 42. One of the contentions was that there being difference in the signature in the cheque and the name of the accused in the complaint, no offence is made out against the accused. The next and the main contention raised by the applicant-accused is that he is working as an agent in the L.I.C. and, in that business, he does not need any money and, therefore, the reason, which is put forward by the complainant in the complaint that the amount was demanded by the accused, 'for the business purpose' is not correct and, therefore, the entire transaction should be disbelieved.

2.4. The learned J.M.F.C. has recorded in para 7 that, 'the accused has not challenged the factum of the cheques being given to the complainant'. The learned J.M.F.C. has also recorded that, 'the accused has not explained as to under what circumstances, he had given the cheques to the complainant' and, therefore, he has drawn a conclusion that cheques, Exhs. 15 and 16, were given by the accused towards the discharge of his lawful debt to the complainant.

3. On perusal of the judgment and order of the learned J.M.F.C., it can be noticed that all possible contentions were raised by the accused, but the same were found without any substance. The accused had contended that the 'amount' in the cheques is written in English, whereas the other details are in 'Hindi'; that the cheques are not answering the requirement of Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; that there is a scribbling in the cheques and that scribbling is not authenticated by short signature and, therefore, the cheques are defective and hence, no steps can be taken based on these cheques; that the cheques do not bear any stamp of the bank and, therefore, it cannot be believed that these cheques had gone in the 'clearing'; that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and he should be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

Perusal of all these contentions and the defences put forwa