PREM SAGAR DHINGRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the following:-

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

(3.) The case is based on a complaint under Sec. 138 of the NI Act filed by the private respondent ('the complainant'). According to it, the revisionist had taken Rs.60,000.00 as loan from the complainant. After sometime, the revisionist gave three cheques of Rs.10,000.00, Rs.10,000.00 and Rs.40,000.00 to the complainant. But, when the complainant presented the cheques in the Bank, they were returned with the endorsement 'Account In-operative". After dishonour of the cheques, the complainant issued a notice dtd. 7/9/2005 to the revisionist, but it was returned by the revisionist. Based on the complaint, the case was lodged. After preliminary enquiry, by an order dtd. 20/10/2005, the revisionist was summoned to answer accusation under Sec. 138 of the Act. The revisionist was examined under Sec. 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code'). The revisionist denied of having given any cheque. He also denied of having received any notice. At that stage, the revisionist told that the case has falsely been proceeded against him. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and produced certain documents, proved them. The revisionist was examined under Sec. 313 of the Code. At that stage also, the revisionist replied that he did not give any cheque to the complainant; he does not know that the cheques were ever dishonoured; he did not receive any notice; the witness has given false evidence against him and he has been falsely implicated.