PRAJAPATI OIL INDUSTRY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner above-named has preferred this Criminal Revision application under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) challenging the judgment and conviction order September 30, 2002, recorded by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad in criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2002, under which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the judgment and conviction order dated December 27, 2001, recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, court No. 10, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Case No. 1689 of 1998 under which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the present petitioner for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act" for short) and sentenced him to suffer SI for one year and directing him to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo further SI for three months.

(2.) THE facts of the case of the complainant before the trial Court may be briefly stated as follows: according to the case of the second respondent, the second respondent has been dealing with sale of chemicals at Ahmedabad. According to the case of the second respondent before the trial Court, the petitioner herein is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. That the petitioner used to purchase goods from the second respondent on credit and an account was also kept in the books of account of the second respondent. The second respondent used to issue bills for the goods purchased by and delivered to the present petitioner. That on completing the account, an amount of rs. 1,12,359/- was found to be due to the second respondent by the petitioner. Therefore, the second respondent demanded the said amount. That at that time, the petitioner issued four cheques as follows:

(3.) THAT the proprietor of the petitioner-Company signed the cheques and they were handed over to the second respondent; that the petitioner assured the second respondent that those cheques would be encashed and honoured by the bank concerned.