T M JAKKANNA Vs. RAJALAXMI TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS/matter coming on for orders this day is taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides, heard and disposed of by this order.

(2.) PETITIONERS herein who are accused 1 and 2 have assailed the order dated 5-4-1999 passed in C. C. No. 931 of 1999 on the file of the JMFC, chitradurga issuing process against them for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Few facts necessary for disposal of this petition are stated as under: the respondent herein presented a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 200 ,of the Cr. P. C. inter alia contending that accused 1 had issued a cheque'for a sum of Rs. 50,000 knowing fully well that there was no sufficient fund in his account. The complainant issued a notice dated 22-2-1999 demanding the amount due and the said notice sent by registered post is duly served on the accused on 24-2-1999. Since the accused failed to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of service of notice, the complainant presented the said complaint to initiate criminal action and punish the accused in Accordance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act. The learned Magistrate before whom the said complaint was presented, took cognizance of the offence, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and marked 4 documents. On being satisfied with the complaint allegations and the sworn statement made by the complainant and the documents marked on his behalf, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act and therefore ordered issue of summons to the accused.

(3.) THIS order is challenged on the following grounds: that there exists no prima facie case against the accused to proceed for the offence alleged against them and necessary ingredients in prima facie proof of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act are not forthcoming. The statutory notice does not indicate the exact value of cheque but attracts entire large amount of transaction and it does not strictly comply the provisions of clause (b) of section 138 of the. Negotiable Instruments Act and there is cognate violation of Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr. P. C. and the complaint is also barred by time.