HARISH GOVINDRAM DHUT Vs. BINA KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner-original accused being aggrieved dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 8-5-2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Ahmedabad City, in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2006 whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment and order dated 7-4-2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 578 of 2003 convicting and sentencing the applicant for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to suffer SI for eighteen months (one and half years) with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further SI for two months and also ordered to pay cheque amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that a criminal complaint being Criminal Case No. 578 of 2003 was filed by the original complainant-present respondent No. 1 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act inter alia alleging that the present applicant was offered a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- by her for running his business and a cheque for the said amount towards repayment of the said loan was also given by him. When the said cheque was presented with her banker on 20-2-2003, it was returned with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement". Hence, a notice dated 8-3-2003 was issued through her advocate on the applicant asking him to make payment within fifteen days. Since he did not make payment even after the said period, the aforesaid complaint was filed and the offence was registered.

(3.) ON conclusion of trial, upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, delivered the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The appeal preferred before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, was however rejected. Hence, the present revision by the applicant-accused.