SHIV SHANKAR AGRAWAL Vs. KHAMHAN RAM KASHYAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.06.2014 (Annexure P/6) passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) by which the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

(2.) The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner has filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) against the respondent for committing offence under Section 138B of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short "the NI Act") read with Section 420 of I.P.C. stating that the accused/ respondent had given cheque No. 179576 dated 27.01.2012 drawn on State Bank of India, Branch- Gevra Project, Korba for Rs. 40,000/-, which was dishonoured by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Korba on account of insufficient balance and information in this regard was received by the petitioner/complainant on 25.06.2021. Hence, the accused has committed offence under Section 138B of the NI Act. As per provision of Section 138 of the NI Act, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the accused/respondent on 21.07.2012, which was acknowledged on 16.08.2012 by the accused. Despite this, the accused has not paid the amount, thereby, committed offence under Section 138B of the NI Act.

(3.) The petitioner filed a complaint on 10.09.2012 under Section 138B of the NI Act and Section 420 of I.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba and the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.04.2013, thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 332 of 2013 before this Court and the same was also dismissed on 24.07.2013 with liberty granted in favour of the petitioner to file revision petition before the Sessions Court. Accordingly, the petitioner filed revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of I.P.C. before Sessions Judge, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.), which was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Korba and by the impugned order, the same was dismissed as barred by limitation.