Criminal Appeal (U/S) No. 3 of 1999 ~~~~~~ Against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.05.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate - Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 487-C of 1996. ~~~~~~ B.P.L. Limited, Adarshila Complex, besides Reserve Bank of India, P.O. – G.P.O., Patna, P. S. – Gandhi Maidan, Town and District – Patna, through its Area Manager, namely, Mahendra Mishra, Son of Late S. R. Mishra, presently the duly constituted Attorney of the Company. …. …. Complainant / Petitioner / Appellant. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. M/s. Rado Marketing Pvt. Ltd., C/o. Shri N.N. Jaiswal, Advocate, Dujra Main Road, Patna 800 001, through its Managing Director, Shri Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal. …. ….. Opposite Parties / Respondents. ~~~~~~ Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondents : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ~~~~~~ P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. No one appears on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court. 2. Heard learned amicus curiae and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.05.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 487-C of 1996, Trial No. 711 of 1998. 4. The prosecution case is that the complainant is the Area Manager of M/s. B. P. L. Limited and the appellant was appointed as distributor and has purchased T. V. sets, V. C. R., Tape Recorders etc. worth Rs.24,00,000/- and odd. He has issued a cheque for the realization of the said amount but the cheque was bounced. With regard to the bouncing of cheque, notice was issued within the stipulated time but even after receipt of the notice the appellant did not pay the amount and so the complaint case was filed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. On the complaint, after taking 2 cognizance, the case was proceeded and during the trial two witnesses were examined. However, neither the original cheque was produced to prove the tender of the cheque and bouncing back of the cheque by the party nor the original notice which was issued by the complainant has been produced and proved before the trial court and hence the trial court held that having regard to the fact since neither the cheque nor the notice has been proved, the injury for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 has not been proved and dismissed the complaint case. 5. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am going through the records the order passed by the trial court is well reasoned and having regard to the fact that since neither the cheque nor the notice regarding the receipt of the notice has been proved by the documentary evidence and hence I do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 16th November, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.