NANDKUMAR VISHWANATH GADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.8.2004, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhoom below Exh.1 in S.C.C. No. 586 of 2004, thereby issuing process against the petitioner under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in criminal revision application No. 144 of 2004, the petitioner original accused has filed present criminal writ petition.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to filing of the said complaint, respondent sugar factory had issued legal notice on 28.7.2003 to the petitioner alleging therein that though he had obtained an amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 as an advance for carting the sugarcane for the crushing season 2002-03, the petitioner had not provided the vehicles for the same. Thereafter, respondent sugar factory persuaded the petitioner to return the said advance amount along with interest. The petitioner accordingly, issued a cheque No. 468771 for Rs.2,87,134/-. The respondent sugar factory had presented the said cheque with its banker, however, the same came to be dishonoured. In reply to the said notice, the present petitioner contended that he had entered in an agreement with respondent sugar factory for the crushing season 2002-03 and in terms of the said agreement, provided one tractor and three trucks to the sugar factory for carting the sugarcane and respondent sugar factory had given him advance amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 for that purpose. The petitioner has specifically stated in his reply that as security for the said advance amount of Rs.5,00,000.00, the respondent sugar factory had obtained three signed blank cheques from him and thus sugar factory subsequently with some ulterior motive misused the said blank cheques. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had mentioned the numbers of said three blank cheques in his reply and respondent sugar factory had thereafter used another blank cheque showing transaction between the sugar factory and brother of the petitioner and accordingly filed false complaint against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Sessions Judge has decided the criminal revision application without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner never issued cheque to respondent No.2 with regard to the alleged transaction entered by his brother with the sugar factory.