DILIPKUMAR J JAIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original complainant-Dilipkumar J. Jain, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th February, 1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 15 of 1993. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application of the complainant/petitioner herein, which he had filed against the judgment and order dated 11th December, 1992, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, who had dismissed the complainants complaint, which he had filed under sections 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) FEW facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows : the present petitioner had filed C. C. No. 18-S-92 against respondent No. 2/original accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In these proceedings, the accused/respondent No. 2/mohammed Tamboli led an application for discharge. The case of complainant was that he was the Manager of M/s. H. B. Jain, a firm doing wholesale business of various items of consumer goods. Respondent No. 2 was the Proprietor of M/s. Bombay Traders, a firm doing trading in some items of consumer goods. The said firm of respondent No. 2 purchased and took delivery of some merchandise from the petitioners firm M/s. S. B. Jain, in payment of which M/s. Bombay Traders issued cheques worth Rs. 57,48. 10 paise in favour of the petitioners firm. They were dishonoured. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above complaint Case No. 18/s/92 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Bhoiwada, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against respondent No. 2, he being the proprietor of the said M/s. Bombay Traders, whose cheques had bounced.

(3.) THEREAFTER, respondent No. 2 filed an application for discharge and along with the discharge application annexed copies of two receipts-one signed by the erstwhile servant Mr. Lekhu of the petitioners firm, purportedly showing having received back some materials and the other one, signed by the petitioner, purportedly showing having received the payment of the said cheques, which were dishonoured.