VINAY PATNI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Shri Ashish Agrawal for the revisionist, Shri R.P. Dwivedi for the complainant-opposite party No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) By this revision, the revisionist, who is an accused, has challenged the order dated 21.07.2012 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Complaint Case No. 220 of 2012, whereby the revisionist has been summoned under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act').

(3.) The complaint case is that the complainant lent a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the revisionist vide pay order No. 172018 dated 17.06.2010, on State Bank of Indore, which was credited to the account of the revisionist. To return the aforesaid amount, the revisionist issued as many as eight cheques of different denominations, drawn on Vijaya Bank, Agra, totaling Rs.20,00,000/-, in favor of the complaint. Upon presentation for encashment, the cheques returned unpaid. Thereafter, the revisionist requested the complainant to present them for encashment in such a manner that not more than three cheques were presented at a time. Accordingly, on 19.03.2012, the complainant deposited three cheques, totaling Rs. 5 lacs, for collection through his account at State Bank of India. On 22.03.2012 the collecting bank returned the cheques to the complainant as having returned unpaid for insufficient funds in the drawer's account. Consequently, on 26.3.2012, the complainant, through his counsel, sent a demand notice to the revisionist under registered cover with acknowledgment due, but no payment was made by the revisionist in spite of expiry of the period of notice. As a result the complaint was filed with the following documents: (i) dishonored cheques; (ii) bank intimation memos; (iii) copy of the demand notice; and (iv) postal receipt.