VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. PANKAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been filed by the petitioner having been aggrieved by the order impugned dated 20/1/2015 passed by the revisional court in Cri. Rev. No. 467/14 whereby the order dated 15/12/2014 passed by the JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 5069/2014 was maintained.

(2.) As per the facts of the case, one private complaint was filed by the respondent-Pankanj Sharma against the petitioner-Vijay Kumar Gupta alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "NI Act"). After appearance of the petitioner, one application was preferred by him before the trial court on 3/11/2014 contending that in this case demand notice has not been served upon the petitioner/accused and therefore in the absence of service of notice, the complaint could not have been entertained by the court nor could any cognizance under the Act for the alleged offence have been taken. Said application was dismissed from the court of trial Magistrate vide order dated 15/12/2014. Against said rejection order dated 15/12/2014, the petitioner preferred Cri. Rev. No. 467/14 before the Special Judge, Gwalior which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order, hence, this petition before us.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the orders passed by the courts-below are against the facts on record and are liable to be set aside. By inviting attention of this court on the ambit of the provisions contained in section 138 of the NI Act it is contended that the offence will be deemed to have been made out only when the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment within the specified period of receipt of the notice. Therefore to make a payment of the amount of dishonoured cheque giving of notice in writing is mandatory. Where no such notice making demand for payment is served upon the drawer as contemplated under the provisions of section 138(b) of the Act then in view of further provision given in clause (c) of the said section the drawer of such cheque cannot be able to make payment. According to the counsel, the notice means a notice in writing. It is submitted that in this case no notice was given to the petitioner and therefore no opportunity was available to the accused-petitioner for payment or to raise objection by way of filing reply to the registered demand notice. Therefore, in view of such backdrop of the facts, the complaint filed by the respondent could not have been accepted by the courts-below. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed by granting relief as prayed in the petition.