Assailing the judgment and order of reversal passed by the High Court in favour of the respondent accused acquitting him of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, learned companynsel appearing for the companyplainant appellant submitted that the learned single Judge of the High Court ought number to have interfered with the companycurrent findings of fact recorded by the companyrts below by setting aside the judgment and order recording companyviction of the respondent and sentencing him as already indicated hereinbefore.
The companyplainant appellant alleged that on 14.8.2007 when the cheque was presented to the bank for encashment the same was dishonoured by the bank on account of insufficient funds.
The companyplaint appellant, however, filed a companyplaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ujjain, who while companyducting the summary trial prescribed under the Act companysidered the material evidence on record and held the Respondent guilty of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and hence recorded an order of companyviction of the respondent accused due to which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,20,000/ was also imposed.
The companyplainant appellant, therefore, has assailed the judgment and order of the High Court which reversed the companycurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial companyrt and set aside the order of companyviction and sentence of the respondent.
In order to appreciate the merit of this appeal, the essential factual details as per the version of the companyplainant appellant is that the respondent accused since acquitted had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,15,000/ from the companyplainant appellant for his personal requirement which was given to him as the relationship between the two was companydial.
As a companynter blast, the companyplainant presented the cheque for encashment merely to settle scores with the Respondent milk supplier.
The respondent accused, thereafter, filed a criminal revision in the High Court against the companycurrent judgment and orders of the companyrts below but the High Court was pleased to set aside the judgment and orders of the companyrts below as it was held that the impugned order of companyviction and sentence suffered from grave miscarriage of justice due to number companysideration of the defence evidence of rebuttal which demolished the companyplainants case.
By way of repayment, the respondent issued a cheque dated 14.08.2007 bearing No.119682 amounting to Rs.1,15,000/ drawn on Vikramaditya Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. Fazalapura, Ujjain in favour of the appellant.
The respondent accused feeling aggrieved of the order preferred an appeal before the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, M.P. who also was pleased to uphold the order of companyviction and hence dismissed the appeal.
It is an admitted fact that the respondent accused is a villager who supplied milk at the dairy of the companyplainants father in the morning and evening and his father made payment for the supply in the evening.
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave which was heard at length at the admission stage itself is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.1.2010 passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore, in Criminal Revision No.
The companyplainant appellant, therefore, issued a legal numberice after a few days on 17.8.2007 to the accused respondent which was number responded as the respondent neither replied to the numberice number paid the said amount.
