KAPIL GARG Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have file supplementary affidavits today in court, which are being taken on record.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava taught counsel, who put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A, for the State-respondent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant contends that the cheque of the applicant was lost, which has been misused by opposite party No. 2 and that the cheque was issued in the name of Firm Radhika Overseas and not in the name of opposite party No. 2 and, therefore, opposite party No. 2 does not have any locus to state that the cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement that the payment was stopped by the drawer and further that it was not returned on account of insufficiency of fund and, therefore, no proceeding under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act could have been drawn.