JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.9.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in criminal Case No.36382/2006, whereby the respondent who was prosecuted for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on complaint filed by the appellant was acquitted. 2. Briefly stating the allegations of the complainant against the respondent were as follows:- 1- vkjksih ds fo#) /kkjk 138 usxksf'k,cy baLVªweasV ,DV ds v/khu ;g vkjksi gS fd mlus ifjoknh dks _.k dh vnk;xh@nkf;Ro ds fuoZgu isVs vius [kkrs dk psd ua-61857 fnukad 31-3-2003 dk #i, 65000@& dk fn;k] tks ifjoknh }kjk Hkqxrku gsrq izLrqr fd, tkus ij vkjksih ds [kkrs eas Ik;kZIr èkujkf'k ugha gksus ls fMlvkuj gks x;kA ifjoknh }kjk bldh lwpuk fofgr vof/k ds Hkhrj vkjksih dks nh x;h] ysfdu lwpuki= izkfIr ds mijkar Hkh vkjksih us pSd dh /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku fu;r vof/k ds Hkhrj ugha fd;k gSA 2- vkjksih dFku eas vkjksih us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og VkVk LVhy flaMsdsV ds uke ls bankSj eas O;kikj djrk gSA 3- la{ksi eas ifjokn bl izdkj gS fd ifjoknh gjoaa'kyky vjksjk] 21 lkmFk gkFkhikyk] bankSj ij vk;uZ ,.M LVhy flaMhdsV ds uke ls O;olk; djrk gSA vkjksih VkVk LVhy flaMsdsV ds uke ls O;kikj djrk gSA vkjksih us ifjoknh ls m/kkj eky [kjhnk Fkk vkSj nks psd ifjoknh dks fn, FksA ifjoknh }kjk psd Ø-61857 #i;s 65]000@& dk fnukad 31-3-2003 dk Hkqxrku gsrq vius cSad [kkrs eas tek fd;k] rks mDr psd vkjksih ds [kkrs eas Ik;kZIr /kujkf'k ugha gksus ls fMlvkWuj gks x;kA ftl ckcr eseks 11-4-2004 dks izkIr gqvkA ifjoknh us fnukad 16-4-2003 dks psd dh /kujkf'k dh ekax djrs gq, jftLVMZ Mkd ls vkjksih dks lwpuki= Hkstk] tks mls fn- 23-4-2003 dks izkIr gks x;k] ysfdu blds ckn Hkh vkjksih us psd dh /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugh fd;k] ftl dkj.k ;g ifjokn izLrqr dh x;h gSA 3. The evidence was led by the parties before the trial Court which was duly considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The evidence was led by the parties before the trial Court which was duly considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Judicial Magistrate First Class was pleased to acquit the respondent primarily for the following reasons :- 12- tcfd] izdj.k eas tks iz-ih- 1 dk psd izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ml ij fnukad 17-4-1993 vafdr gS] bl frfFk dks dkVk x;k gS vkSj blds mij 31-3-2003 dh frfFk fy[kh x;h gSA bleas egRoiw.kZ rF; ;g gS fd bl dkVkihVh ds LFkku ij vkjksih ds gLrk{kj ;k y?kq gLrk{kj ugha gS] bl dkj.k iz-ih-1 ds psd ds voyksdu ls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd mDr pSd fn- 17-4-1993 dks tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ckn eas bl frfFk dks dkVk tkdj psd ij fnukad 31-3-2003 dh frfFk fy[kh x;h gS] tks vkjksih ds gLrk{kj ls vf/kizekf.kr ugha gSA 13- ifjoknh ds izfrijh{k.k eas ifjoknh dk /;ku bl vksj vkd"V dj izfrijh{k.k fd;k x;k gSA izfrijh{k.k ds isjk 11 eas ifjoknh us Li"V :i ls ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd iz-ih-1 ds psd ij rkjh[k dh txg ij ^,* ls ^,* Hkkx ij 17-4-1993 fy[kk gqvk gS vkSj bl ckr dks Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd tgka o"kZ 1993 fy[kk gS] og dVk gqvk gS vkSj tgka dkVkihVh gqbZ gS] ogka ij vkjksih ds dksbZ gLrk{kj ugha gSA 14- ifjoknh }kjk dh x;h mDr Lohd`fr ls vkSj psd ij fy[kh rkjh[k eas dh x;h dkVkihVh ls vkjksih dh bl izfrj{kk dks cy feyrk gS fd mlds }kjk dqN iqjkus psd ifjoknh dks fn;s x, Fks] ftldk ckn eas mi;ksx fd;k x;k gSA 15- eky foØ; ls lacaf/kr dksbZ Hkh nLrkost izLrqr ugh fd, tkus vkSj psd dh rkjh[k cnys tkus ls rFkk dkVkihVh ds LFkku ij vkjksih ds gLrk{kj ugha gksus ls bl ckr ds izfr Hkh lansg mRiUu gksrk gS fd mDr psd _.k dh vnk;xh ;k nkf;Ro ds fuoZgu isVs fn;k x;k FkkA 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and there being no evidence on behalf of the appellant that the cheque was given for consideration, the trial Court while acquitting the respondent made the following observations :- 17- blh izdkj bl laca/k eas ekxh 'ksV~Vh ukxs;k fo- vka/kzizns'k jkT;] 2004 fØfeuy ykW tujy] 4107 dk U;k;n`"Vkar Hkh voyksduh; gS] ftlds varxZr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd tgka vkjksih ij vfHkdfFkr ns; jkf'k ds laca/k eas O;kikj lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gks] ifjoknh dh vksj ls dksbZ Hkh [kkrs bUde VsDl fjiksVZ vkWfMV cqd izLrqr ugha dh x;h gks] ogka ifjokn fujLr fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA 18- psd dh rkjh[k ifjofrZr fd, tkus ls vkSj ifjorZu ds LFkku ij vkjksih ds gLrk{kj ugha gksus ls ;g Hkh nf'kZr gksrk gS fd mDr psd N% ekg dh vofèk ds Hkhrj cSad eas Hkqxrku gsrq izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA 19- tgka rd psd fMlvkWuj gksus ds ckn lwpuk i= fn, tkus dk iz'u gS] bl fcanq ij Hkh ifjoknh ds izfrijh{k.k eas ;g ckr vk;h gS fd lwpuk i= vkjksih ds nf'kZr irs ij ugha Hkstk x;k FkkA 20- izfrijh{k.k ds isjk 15 eas ifjoknh us bl ckr dks lgh crk;k gS fd mlus ifjokni= dks 'kh"kZd eas vkSj uksfVl dh izfr eas vkjksih dk irk 58@1 nkSyrxat bankSj fy[kk gS] tcfd tks izkfIr vfHkLohd`fr iz-ih-5 izdj.k eas izLrqr dh x;h gS] ml ij vkjksih dh nqdku dk irk 158@1 nkSyrxat ¼gkFkhikyk½ bankSj fy[kk gSA 21- bl laca/k eas Li"Vhdj.k nsrs gq, ifjoknh us izfrijh{k.k ds iSjk 15 eas ;g dgk gS fd 58 ds vkxs vkcfyd yxk gSA fdUrq] ifjoknh dh vksj ls fn;k x;k og Li"Vhdj.k LohÑfr ;ksX; izrhr ugha gksrk gS] D;ksafd vkcfyd dk fpUg vadksa ds ckn gh cuk;k tkrk gSA blds vfrfjDr tks iz-ih- 5 dh izkfIr vfHkLohÑfr izLrqr gS] mlds voyksdu ls gh ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd 158@1 Li"V :i ls fy[kk gqvk gSA bl dkj.k ifjoknh }kjk fn;k x;k Li"Vhdj.k Lohd`fr ;ksX; izrhr ugha gksrk gS vkSj nf'kZr lwpuk i= ifjokni= vkSj uksfVl eas mYysf[kr irs ij ugha Hkstk tkuk nf'kZr gksrk gSA 5. The trial Court has also observed that even notice of demand was not send on the correct address. The trial Court has also observed that even notice of demand was not send on the correct address. Paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 are also relevant which are reproduced hereunder :- 25- blds vfrfjDr bl izdj.k eas ;g rF; Hkh egRoiw.kZ gS fd tks iz-ih-1 dk psd fn;k x;k gS] og gjoa'kyky vjksjk ds O;fDrxr uke dk ugha gksdj es- vk;uZ ,.M LVhy fl.MsdsV ds uke dk gSA gjoa'kyky us ;g ifjokn Lo;a dks mDr izksizk;Vjf'ki dalu dk izksizk;Vj n'kkZrs gq, izLrqr dh gS] ysfdu vius izksizk;Vj gksus ds ckjs eas dksbZ Hkh nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA vius izfrijh{k.k ds iSjk 7 eas ifjoknh gjoa'kyky us bl ckr dks lgh crk;k gS fd mlus ,slk dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;k gS] ftlls ;g nf'kZr gks lds fd og vk;uZ ,.M LVhy fl.MsdsV dk izksizk;Vj gS] ifjoknh us cSad [kkrs eas viuk izksizk;Vj gksuk crk;k gS] ysfdu dksbZ iklcqd izLrqr ugha dhA 26- bl fcanq ij nLru fo- jkuheksy] 2003¼2½] cSadlZ tujy] 164 dk U;k; n`"Vkar voyksduh; gSA ftlds varxZr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd tgka psd daluZ ds uke dk gks vkSj ifjoknh mDr fctusl daluZ ugha gksdj O;fDr }kjk izLrqr dh x;h gks vkSj ifjoknh }kjk lkfcr djus ds fy, dksbZ lk{; ugha nh x;h gks] fd og ml fctusl daluZ dk izksizk;Vj gS] ogka ifjoknh dks dksbZ lgk;rk ugha nh tk ldrh gSA izksizk;Vj vFkok ekfyd gksuk lkfcr djus dk Hkkj ifjoknh ij gSA 27- mijksDr leLr dkj.kksa ls ifjoknh ;g izekf.kr djus eas vlQy jgk gS fd vkjksih }kjk mDr psd nkf;Ro ds fuoZgu ;k _.k dh vnk;xh gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA ifjoknh ;g Hkh lkfcr djus eas vlQy jgk gS fd psd N% ekg dh vofèk ds Hkhrj cSad eas izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA ;g Hkh lkfcr djus eas vlQy jgk gS fd mlus vkjksih ds lgh irs ij pSd dh /kujkf'k dh ek¡x dh lwpuki= izLrqr fd;k Fkk vkSj ;g Hkh lkfcr djus eas vlQy jgk gS fd og Lo;a ifjokn i= eas oftZr izksizk;Vjf'ki daluZ dk izksizk;Vj gS] bu leLr dkj.kksa ls vkjksih ds fo#) ;qfDRk;qDr lansg ls ijs vijk/k izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA 6. Considering all these facts it is apparent that respondent was acquitted for good reasons inasmuch as there was a dispute about consideration for which the cheque was allegedly issued, the date of the cheque, service of statutory notice on the respondent as discussed above. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal, it is settled law that if two views are possible of the evidence which has come on record, the one view which supports the case of the accused, the benefit of the same has to be given to the accused. 7. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.