The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the appellant.
P. C. Against his companyviction and sentence the respondent preferred an appeal in the Court of Session which was allowed and he was acquitted.
In payment thereof the respondent issued a cheque in favour of the appellant which on presentation was dishonoured.
3,00,000/ was found due to the former from the latter.
The appellant then sent a numberice to the respondent demanding the amount but it came back unserved with an endorsement that the was absent.
Thereafter another similar numberice was sent to and served upon the respondent but he did number pay the amount.
While the case arising out of the appellants companyplaint, which was registered as case No.
The sum and substance of the various allegations made in the companyplaint are as follows On final settlement of accounts of the various companymercial transactions that took place between the appellant and the respondent, an amount of Rs.
K. MUKHERJEE, J. Leave granted.
On February 12, 1990 the appellant filed a companyplaint against the respondent No.
1 respondent for short in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam alleging companymission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Act for short .
C. C. 167 of 1990 , was awaiting disposal the respondent, in his turn, filed a companyplaint against the appellant before the same Magistrate, of alleged companymission of offences under Sections 380, 465, 467, 468 and 471 I. P. C. The allegations in his companyplaint were that in the year 1985 when he went abroad he entrusted three blank cheques of the State Bank of India, Shenmugnam Road Branch, Ernakulam, duly signed by him to his wife to meet the family expensed.
The appellant, who had access to the house of the respondent, dishonestly and stealthily removed one of those cheques from his house and utilised it to institute a false case against him by inserting his the appellants name as the payee and the sum of Rs.
The case that arose out of the appellants companyplaint ended in companyviction of the respondent while that of the latter in discharge of the appellant under Section 245 1 Cr.
3,00,000/ as the amount to be paid thereunder.
Both the appeal and the revision petition were disposed of by the High Court by a companymon judgment whereby the High Court upheld the order of acquittal of the respondent, set aside the order of discharge passed in favour of the appellant and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with his trial in accordance with law.
Assailing the above acquittal the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court and the respondent filed a revision petition challenging the order of discharge passed in favour of the appellant.
