AMIT THAPAR Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order passed by the revisional Court in a revision filed by him under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. vide judgment dated 14/8/2015, whereby while disposing off the revision petition the revisional Court has taken note of the factum of a receipt available with the respondent about sending of the notice on 25/1/2010 to the petitioner regarding dishonour of the cheque in question for which a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been filed.

(2.) The petitioner has come before this Court with a grievance that such observation made by the revisional Court is contrary to the scheme of the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. He submits that the very fact that there is no mention of the receipt in the complaint itself, this takes away the basis of filing of the complaint and therefore, permitting such receipts to be now taken on record would be permitting to filling in lacuna and making out a case for the respondent even there was no such case about dishonour of the cheque or issuance of notice with regard to such dishonour. He relies upon a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of N.K. Sabarwal vs. Rauf Khan, 2006 4 MPLJ 545, wherein it has been observed in para 5, 6 and 8 as under:-

(3.) This judgment with respect to the learned counsel for petitioner may not help for the reason, that in the legal notice and in the complaint itself filed by the respondent there is a mention about sending of a notice to the petitioner regarding dishonour of the cheque in para 8. In that paragraph it has also been very specifically stated that the notice was duly received by the petitioner, but he has neither made the payment nor responded to the same.