JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1.1 As the common questions of fact and law arise in both these matters, both these matters are heard and decided together by this common judgment.

1.2 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments and orders of acquittal dated 27.02.2007, passed by rd the learned 3 Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anand in Criminal Case Nos.5422 of 2006 and 5331 of 2006, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant – original complainant has preferred these appeals under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

2. The brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are such that the appellant (original complainant) was an agriculturist and carrying out agricultural operations; that respondent No.2 was in need of money and the appellant, as a friend of respondent No.2, lent a sum of Rs.3,26,000/- in cash; respondent No.2 promised to repay the said amount within a period of three months; but as he did not repay the same, the appellant demanded the same. Therefore, respondent No.2, issued the following cheques towards payment of Rs.3,26,000/-.

On presentation of the cheque No.428085 dated 07.07.2006 for Rs.3,00,000/-, the same was returned unpaid on account of ‘insufficient funds’ and on presentation of the cheque No.428082 dated 08.06.2006 for Rs.10,000/-, the said cheque was also returned unpaid on account of ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant issued a statutory notice as per the requirements of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short, ‘the NI Act’), but as the amount was not paid, the complainant filed complaints against the accused, being Criminal Case Nos.5422 of 2006 and 5331 of 2006, respectively.

3. Considering the verification of the complainant and the documents, the complaints were registered, the accused was called for by serving the summons, the accused remained present before the Court, and he was provided with the complaint and the documents. On recording the statement of the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the case, various oral and documentary evidence were produced before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgments :

: ORAL EVIDENCE :

: Documentary Evidence :

The following evidence is produced by the defence :

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the complainant, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offence, by holding that the complainant has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6.1 Learned advocate for the appellant-original complainant has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dot