G E CAPITAL TRANSPORATION FINANCIALSERVICES LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL)CRL. L. P. 279/2008 leave granted. The leave petition stands disposed of accordingly. CRL. A. /2009 (TO BE NUMBERED)Be registered and numbered.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 18. 10. 2008 passed by the learned metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi acquitting the accused in the complaint case titled as "m/ s. G. E. Capital Transportation Financial Services ltd. vs. Shyam Vir Singh" filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent No. 2 had approached the appellant Company for grant of loan for the purchase of a vehicle, consequent to which a loan agreement was executed between the appellant Company and the respondent No. 2. Subsequently, in discharge of the outstanding amount, the respondent No. 2 issued two cheques bearing no. 78794 dated 20. 09. 2007 for an amount of Rs. 14,850/- and another Cheque No. 78795 dated 20. 10. 2007 for an amount of rs. 14,850/- both drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ghaziabad. The aforesaid cheques were dishonoured on presentation, resulting in the appellant Company filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. On 19. 04. 2008, the said complaint was received in the Court and the same was adjourned to 22. 04. 2008 for consideration. By an order dated 22. 04. 2008, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to the accused and thereafter listed the matter for 06. 06. 2008. On the said date, i. e. on 06. 06. 2008, the respondent No. 2 entered appearance and was admitted to bail. Notice under Section 251 Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the n. I. Act was framed against the respondent no. 2, to which the respondent No. 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Pertinently, however, the respondent No. 2 at the time of entering his plea of 'not Guilty' stated that he had issued the aforesaid cheques but the same could not be cleared on account of financial difficulty and as he was ill during relevant period, but he had made payments during the aforesaid period in four instalments of Rs. 50,000/- each, and altogether he had made a payment of eight instalments, and only three instalments were due when the vehicle was re-possessed by the complainant on 12. 01. 2008. He did not make the said payment subsequently as the complainant had seized/re-possessed his vehicle. He had received the notice, but non-payment was on account of the aforesaid re-possession.