ANIL KUMAR HARITWAL Vs. SANT PRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid three revision petitions.

(2.) CR. Revisions 344 and 412 of 2000 have been filed against the order dated 29-8-2000, passed by the Trial Court whereby the application moved under Section 142-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter referred to 'n. I. Act', whereunder the objection raised regarding competency to file complaint by a person in question has been rejected and the complaint was held to be maintainable, taking cognizance in the matter.

(3.) THE facts of Cr. Rev. No. 344/2000 are that the complainant Sant Prakash Gupta had made a complaint under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, as per Annexure P-l, against the petitioners-accused on the ground that the petitioners/accused took a loan in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the respondent/complainant through cheque No. 485117, dated 11-6-96 and in lieu thereof they had executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant to the effect that on demand they will return the payment of loan with interest as determined between the parties. The amount was to be returned after twelve months. It was alleged that the amount of interest alone was paid by the accused-petitioners and on 1-6-97 second promissory note was got executed and the first one was taken back by them and on that date one post-dated chequeno. 315063, in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, of Punjab National Bank, Chetakpuri, Branch Gwalior was handed over to the complainant/respondent and he was asked that the amount will be encashed on the due, after one month. It was submitted that on 7-10-98 when the complainant tendered the said cheque to the bank, the bank informed him that the petitioners/accused had no sufficient amount in their account for payment of the cheque and accordingly, the cheque was returned to the complainant.