NITYANAND Vs. JAMUNA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is facing prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('n. I. Act' for short), on the complaint filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the respondent-complainant. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, has recorded sworn statement of the complainant, has found sufficient ground to proceed, and has directed issuing of process. The petitioner is aggrieved with the same.

(2.) THE case concerns two cheques allegedly issued by the petition eraccused in favour of the respondent-complainant, both dated 5/10/1999, one for Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and another for Rs. 50,000. 00, both drawn on Syndicate Bank, Gavipuram Extension Branch, Bangalore. On cheques being dishonoured on presentation for encashment, the respondent-complainant got issued a notice dated 26/10/1999 making a demand in writing as contemplated under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N. I. Act. No payment of the amounts covered by the cheques having been made within fifteen days of receipt of notice, complaint came to be filed.

(3.) SRI Ramesh Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused, herein, has two submissions to make. The first one is that, these cheques had not been issued at all in favour of the respondent-complainant, that the petitioner-accused had no transaction at all with the respondent-complainant, and that, he had delivered two cheques to the complainant's brother-in-law one Prasad, who had promised to lend money to the petitioner-accused, but did not do so. This is the first submission. The second submission is that, non-mentioning of the cheque numbers in the notice of demand issued under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N. I. Act is fatal, and the very institution of the complaint gets vitiated.