KRISHAN @ KRISHAN PAL TANWAR Vs. ROHTAS KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th May, 2015 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No.6722/14, titled as 'Krishan @ Krishan Pal Tanwar v. Rohtas Kumar Verma', whereby the said complaint preferred by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was dismissed and the respondent/accused was acquitted.

(2.) Briefly stated, the appellant's case is that in August, 2007 the appellant and respondent had filled up tender in Uttrakhand Roadways, Dehradun in five numbers of Rs. 10,000/- each. The appellant had paid the cost of five tenders which the respondent had filled up that is Rs. 50,000/- on behalf of the respondent. Appellant also paid Rs. 6,15,000/- to body makers on behalf of the respondent for preparing body of his five buses. Respondent financer bank paid Rs. 2,50,000/- and a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was paid by Oberoi motors. Out of Rs. 6,65,000/-, the appellant received Rs. 2,75,000/-, thus the respondent was liable to pay Rs. 3,90,000/- to the appellant. Further, the respondent had also purchased goods for Rs. 5,400/- by using his credit card. In July, 2008, when the respondent was in Haridwar, the appellant through one Sunil paid Rs. 2,000/- to the wife of the respondent as per his telephonic request. The appellant also paid an interest amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Pappu on behalf of the respondent in July, 2008 and Rs. 3,750/- for repair of tyres of his vehicle at Dehradun on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) In August, 2008 the account was settled between the respondent and the appellant which included an amount of Rs. 84,000/- towards interest from 1st April, 2008 to 15th December, 2008 against the principal amount, in discharge of total liability of Rs. 4,90,150/- to the appellant, the respondent issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 054813 dated 15th December, 2008 for a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- drawn on Induslnd Bank Ltd., Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi in favour of the appellant. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured vide return memo dated 20th December, 2008 with remarks "funds insufficient". Consequently, appellant approached the respondent and informed him about the dishonour of the cheque. Thereafter, the respondent requested the appellant to present the cheque again, however, it was again dishonoured vide return memo dated 6th January, 2009. Consequently, legal notice dated 16th January, 2009 was sent to the respondent vide registered AD and UPC demanding to make the payment towards the cheque amount within the stipulated time. Since the respondent failed to make the payment, the appellant preferred the complaint.