REKHA MAHINDRA SHAH Vs. GAUTAM UMED PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant/Accused has approached this Court in revisional jurisdiction challenging the Judgment and Order dated 5th September, 2011 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2008. By this Judgment and Order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 12th December, 2007 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 10th Court, Kolhapur in Summary Criminal Case No.2252 of 2005. The learned Magistrate had convicted and sentenced the Applicant/Original Accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short "the N.I. Act").

(2.) It is common ground that the Original Complainant/Respondent No.1 before me carries on business in the name and style M/s. Parmar Steel at Kolhapur. It is alleged by the Respondent No.1/Original Complainant that the Applicant/Original Accused approached him in 200405 and purchased M.A. Structure goods on credit basis. Towards purchase of these materials, the Applicant/Original Accused issued three cheques drawn on the Karnataka Bank Limited, Shahupuri Branch at Kolhapur dated 12th April, 2005 of total amount of Rs.5,00,000/. These cheques were presented by the Respondent No.1/Original Complainant through his Bank M/s. UTI Bank Limited, Kolhapur and the Bank forwarded the memo of dishonor of each cheque by the Applicant's Bank containing the remark "exceeds arrangement". The Respondent No.1/Original Complainant, therefore, issued a notice dated 31st May, 2005 by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due demanding the sum under these three cheques. This notice was received by the Applicant/Original Accused on 1st June, 2005. The Applicant/Original Accused did not make payment, as demanded, within the time specified, and that is how the complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be filed.

(3.) Upon the complaint being filed, a summons was issued and the charges were framed. The defence of the Applicant/Original Accused was of denial. That is how the case was tried and the evidence was recorded. Even the documents were exhibited. The statement of the Applicant/Original Accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was recorded.