MOHAMMAD RIZWAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the instant revision is made to the followings:-

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

(3.) Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy are in a very short span. They are as follows. The private respondent filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act against the revisionists. According to it, the revisionist No. 1 is sole proprietor of the trading firm. Revisionist No. 1 purchased scrap from the private respondent on 25/4/2019. The total cost of the scrap was Rs.6,28,360.00. The revisionist No. 1 gave a cheque dtd. 25/4/2019 as consideration. But, when presented on 4/6/2019, it was dishonored. The information was given to the private respondent on 8/6/2019. Thereafter, a notice was given on 10/6/2019 to the revisionists, but they did not pay the money. Hence, the complaint was filed on 9/7/2019, cognizance taken. The revisionist No. 1 was read over the accusations on 8/9/2014. In order to prove its case, the private respondent appeared himself as PW1. He reiterated the version of the complaint and produced various documents, including the cheque Ex. A-1, Bank memo Ex. A-2, deposition of cheque in the bank receipt Ex. A-3, a copy of the notice Ex. A-4, and various documents pertaining to the transactions. He also submitted that the original Bill Book Ex. A-10, certain photographs, the documents regarding the income tax department Ex. A-13, and records of commercial tax Ex. A-16.