MRUDULBEN MAHENDRAKUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT . As learned advocate Mr. Chetan K. Pandya appears for the respondent accused, bailable warrant is not required to be issued against respondent accused.

(2.) WITH the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

(3.) ACCORDING to the complainant, he wanted to sell shares of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and therefore contacted the accused who obtained share transfer form from the Broker and obtained his signature. The accused assured that the amount of shares would be received within short time but despite long lapse of time the amount was not received. Therefore, he demanded amount of shares. Therefore, the accused gave cheque No. 184024 dated 21.12.2000 for Rs. 46,500.00 drawn on Makarpura Industrial Estate Co-operative Bank Limited. On presentation of the cheque it returned unpaid with endorsement of "account closed". Therefore, notice was served to the accused demanding the amount of unpaid cheque but the accused did not pay the amount of unpaid cheque. Therefore, complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara and it was registered as Criminal Case No. 2238 of 2001.