1. Complaint Case No. : 13015/09 2. Name of the complainant : M/s Axis Bank Limited, Branch office at B­6, Lajpat Nagar­ II, New Delhi­110024 3. Name of the accused and his : Shri Pal Jain, parentage and residence Proprietor of Jain Bandhu (India) AP­578, Ist Floor, Mayur Enclave, Pitam Pura, New Delhi­110034 4. Offence complained of or proved: U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 6. Final Order : Accused acquitted 7. Date of Order : 25.01.2012 2 CC No. 13015/09 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant bank is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and licensed as a bank under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and having its branch office at Delhi. Sh. Praveen Ravesh is the Authorized Representative of the Complainant bank and he has been authorized to sign, file and institute the present complainant vide Power of Attorney executed in his favour dated 08.04.2008. 2. It is stated in the complaint that the accused Shri Pal Jain availed finance for purchasing a vehicle from the complainant bank vide Agreement No. 2450010601578234 and in consideration to absolve the legal liability/debt in parts towards the complainant, the accused issued three cheques bearing No. 218502 to 2185024 all dated 14.03.2009 and drawn on UCO Bank, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Paharganj, New Delhi­11005 for an amount of Rs.14,030/­ each and are Ex.CW1/2 to Ex.CW1/4 and when the said cheques were presented for encashment were returned back with remark 'Account Closed' vide return memos dated 28.03.2009 i.e., Ex. CW1/5. A legal demand notice which is Ex. CW1/6 dated 13.04.2009 was sent by the complainant company through its lawyer which was duly served on the accused vide Speed Post receipt dated 15.04.2009 i.e. Ex.CW1/7 and that the accused failed to make the payment within the statutory period of 15 days and 3 CC No. 13015/09 hence this criminal complaint was filed by the complainant. 3. Upon service of summons, the accused put his appearance firstly before the court and was admitted to bail on 24.08.2009. Notice was also framed against the accused person on 24.08.2009 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. EVIDENCE 4. To support its case, the complainant company examined CW1­ Sh. Praveen Ravesh, AR of the Complainant company on 16.08.2011, 01.09.2011, 21.11.2011 & 03.01.2012. 5. On 16.08.2011 CW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated the contents of the complaint and relied upon the documents filed at the stage of pre­summoning evidence. During the cross­examination CW1 stated that his authority is as per Board Resolution held in May 2005 and that he was not the employee of the complainant bank at that time. It was also stated that the authority letter was not signed in his presence. CW1, however, denied the suggestion that he has no authority to depose in the present complaint. 6. On 01.09.2011, CW1 stated in his cross­examination that he was not aware of the mode of repayment with respect to the loan availed by the accused. It was further stated that he did not know that when and where the cheques in question were handed over to the complainant bank by the accused. It was further stated that he