DHARMENDRA GUPTA Vs. RAMSWAYAMBER @ RAMESHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, this matter is heard finally.

(2.) NECESSARY facts, in short, are that on 26.1.2009 respondent/accused received Rs. 1,15,000/ - from the petitioner/complainant for his family use and signed the cheque bearing no. 059643 dated 4.2.2009 payable at Sharda Gramin Bank, Amarpatan District Satna. On 24.3.2009 on presentation of the aforesaid cheque, it was bounced for want of funds in the account of the respondent. While a notice informing the fact of bounce and demanding money was sent by the registered post, it could not be served for want of correct address/details of the respondent. Hence, service of notice was made by publication in news paper. At last, on 3.6.2009 petitioner preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the trial Court.

(3.) ON considering the evidence of Rajendra S/o respondent (DW1) and respondent himself (DW2) fact of story of theft of the cheque book does not inspire the confidence because it is nowhere made clear that how the aforesaid cheque reached in possession of the complainant. In such a situation, evidence of DW1, DW2 and Ex. D/2 and Ex. D/3 on this point become pointless. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has wrongly placed much reliance on the fact of compromise between the parties in different earlier case of Section 138 of the Act.