KARTARSINGH DHILLON Vs. JAGJITSINGH DHENOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent No.1 filed criminal case being Criminal Case No.928 of 1994 in the Court of 9th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant/ original accused. THE applicant had the benefit of full dressed trial and the 9th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and further directed that in default of payment of fine, the applicant should undergo simple imprisonment for three months. This was done by judgment dated 25.9.1998. THE applicant being aggrieved by this judgment filed Criminal Appeal No.66 of 1998 in the Court of the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge Thane. THE 4th Addl. District Judge, Thane by his judgment dated 2.8.2000 dismissed the appeal and directed the applicant to surrender to his bail. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by learned 4th Addl. District Judge, Thane dated 2.8.2000 the applicant has filed this revision application seeking to move this court in its revisional jurisdiction. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this revision application are as under:

(2.) THE applicant owned a hotel by name Payal in Bombay and the respondent No.1 was permitted to conduct the said hotel for which the respondent No.1 had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the applicant by way of security deposit. For some reason the respondent No.1 was required to surrender the hotel business to the applicant. On account of that the applicant delivered to the respondent No.1 a cheque dated 18.9.1993 for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the refund of the security deposit. THE said cheque came to be dishonoured and on 11.1.1994 the respondent No.1 issued a statutory notice dated 19.1.1994 as required under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). THE applicant replied to the said notice by reply dated 18.2.1994.

(3.) I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Mohite in support of the revision application. It is required to be mentioned that learned Advocate Mr. Sandeep Patil who had once filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.1 appeared before this Court and informed this Court that the papers have since been returned to respondent No.1 and that is how the argument of learned Advocate Mr. Patil could not be heard and I proceeded to hear the matter as if the respondent No.1 has been duly served.