S V MUTHYE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is one of the partners of M.P.Agricultural Corporation, Jabalpur seeks quashment of complaint No.55/1 of 1994 filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1872 (for short the 'Act') pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) Complaint was filed on 1/11/1994 by respondent No.2 alleging that Fairfield Engineers (P) Ltd had been supplying accessories and parts including Disel generating sets to the petitioner-accused for which bills / invoices were being raised. Against bill No.832 dated 22nd October 1993 for Rs.57,700.00 and bill No.831 dated 22/10/1993 for Rs.79,970.20, the petitioner issued cheque Nos.0957729 dated' 10th March 1994 for Rs.57,700/-, 0957731 dated 15/03/1994 for Rs.40,000.00 and 0957732 dated 20/03/1994 for Rs.39,970.20 in favour of respondent No.2. All these cheques were drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Jabalpur. Said cheque No.0957729 dated 10th March 1994 on being deposited with the bank on 7/07/1994, was received back unpaid on 29/07/1994 with the remark insufficient funds'. Cheque No.0957731 dated 15/03/1994 was presented for encashment on 9/07/1994 and returned unpaid on 20/07/1994 with the remark 'exceeds arrangement'. Cheque No.0957732 dated 20th March 1994 presented for encashment on 9/07/1994, was also returned unpaid by the petitioner's banker on 25/07/1994 with the remark 'exceeds arrangement'. It is further alleged that as petitioner had promised on phone to make payments of the amounts of said cheques, respondent No.2 did not serve demand notice(s) within 15 days of the receipt of intimations regarding dishonour of cheques, on the petitioner. Respondent No.2 got a legal notice served through counsel on 5/09/1994 on the petitioner calling upon him to make payments of the amounts of said 3 cheques. Petitioner wrote a letter dated 12/09/1994 accepting liability for payments of amounts of these cheques. Respondent No.2 got another legal notice dated 24/09/1994 served through counsel on account of mistake in the said notice dated 5/09/1994 in mentioning the name of respondent No.2 wrongly. Petitioner failed to make payments of .the amounts covered by the said 3 cheques despite service of the said notice. It was prayed that petitioner be tried and punished for the offences committed.

(3.) Alongwith complaint, application under section 5 of Limitation Act was also filed seeking condonation of delay in question.