POPULAR WATCH COMPANY Vs. PRADEEP PRATAPRAO SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate for the applicants who are original accused. Respondent no.1, who is original complainant, is present in person.

(2.) IT is the case of the complainant that the accused no.1 is a partnership firm of which accused no.2 is a partner. The accused were in financial need and on his request he had advanced hand loan of Rs. 1 lac in the year 2001. For repayment of that amount, the accused No.2 issued a cheque dated 28/5/2004 of Rs.1 lakh, drawn on the Muslim Co-op. Bank Ltd, for repayment of said loan. On presentation for encashment, the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient fund and the intimation of the same was received by the complainant on 31/5/2004. On 16/5/2005 the complainant issued a statutory notice making demand of the cheque amount. Inspite of receipt of the notice, the accused failed to make the payment within the stipulated period of 15 days. Therefore, the complainant filed a criminal case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicants has taken me through the evidence led by the parties as well as the observations made by both the Courts below. He contended that pending the criminal case, the complainant had also filed a Summary Suit No.79 of 2007 on the basis of same cause and the Civil Court had partly decreed the suit to the extent of payment of Rs.1 lakh being the cheque amount with future interest @ 4% per annum. The learned Advocate for the applicants contends that accused no.2 has already deposited the compensation amount with the trial Court and he has also deposited the decretal amount as per the order in the civil suit. According to him, firstly, there was no reason to reject the evidence led by the accused to show that he had repaid the loan amount and secondly, in view of repayment of the loan amount, the order of conviction and sentence of imprisonment is liable to be quashed.