JUDGEMENT
A.K. Pathak, J. -
(1.)(Oral) - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th Aug., 2010 passed by the Trial Court whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.)It is the case of the appellant that M/s Akansha Machine Tools, a sole proprietorship firm of respondent's father, was enjoying temporary overdraft facility from the appellant. Shri Jitender Sharma was the then Branch Manager of the appellant. Respondent, in discharge of liability of M/s Akansha Machine Tools, issued three cheques bearing numbers 224600 dated 06.03.2006 for Rs.2,25,000.00, 224598 dated 10.03.2006 for Rs.1,00,000.00 and 224599 dated 06.03.2006 for Rs.1,00,000.00 all drawn on Bank of Punjab Ltd. Noida, U.P., in favour of appellant. On presentation, cheques were returned dishonored for the reason "insufficient funds". The amount involved in the cheques was not paid by the respondent within the statutory period despite service of demand notice. Thus, respondent had committed offence under Sec. 138 of the Act.
(3.)At the pre-summoning evidence appellant examined Mr. Jitender Sharma as CW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. Trial Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the respondent. Notice under Sec. 251 Code Criminal Procedure was framed against him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, Shri Devender Kumar Magotra, Authorised Representative of appellant, was examined as PW1. He filed his affidavit in his examination-in-chief, reiterating the averments made in the complaint. He has fully supported the appellant's version. He proved the cheques in question as Ex. PW1/2 to PW1/4. Cheque returning memos have been proved as Ex. PW1/5 to PW1/7. Demand notice was proved as PW1/8. Postal receipts were proved as PW1/9 and PW1/10. This witness was cross-examined by the respondent's counsel at length.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.