HARINARAYAN MENA Vs. SAUTRIC DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.07.2013, whereby the court below has taken cognizance on a complaint preferred under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) against the petitioner.

(2.) The respondent/complainant filed an application under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the court below. In the said complaint, it is stated that the cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonored because of paucity of fund in the account of the petitioner.

(3.) Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submits that as per story narrated by complainant, petitioner sold a JCB machine to respondent for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- out of which Rs. 6,00,000/- were taken in advance on 30.04.2012. The petitioner has purchased the said machine through loan from Canara Bank. On the date of dealing, Rs. 8,99,806/- were balance in the loan account and this amount was to be paid by respondent to the bank. The respondent has deposited some sum through different receipts in the account of petitioner and received sell letter from the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner has taken the aforesaid machine from the respondent by saying that he has some work in his field. However, machine was not returned by him. The respondent applied for registration of machine in his favour in Registration Office, Vidisha, but because of objection of petitioner it could not be registered in his name. When machine was not returned, petitioner gave a cheque of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the respondent which was in turn furnished in the bank for encashment on 16.01.2013. The cheque was bounced on account of insufficient balance and therefore, complaint was filed. It is urged that this was the story of the prosecution which is far from truth. Shri Goswami contended that the actual facts are that petitioner has purchased the aforesaid JCB machine through loan from Canara Bank. At the time of taking loan, the petitioner's uncle namely Shri Lakhan Singh Mena became the guarantor. There was a family consent letter dated 08.03.2009 between him and his uncle. Resultantly, a blank cheque No. 520588 was given to his uncle. This cheque was given so that if he fails to deposit the loan amount, cheque may serve the purpose. Copy of family consent letter dated 08.03.2009 is filed as Annexure P/2.