VINOD RAKHAN Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 170/ 99, dated 26.4.2000 affirming the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 914/97, dated 17.9.1999 by which the petitioner was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs. 30,000/-. In default to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months'.

(2.) IN short, the facts of the case are that non-petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegation that about eight months back, the petitioner had taken Rs. 25,000/- from the non-petitioner No. 2 for purchasing some plot. When money was demanded, the petitioner avoided to return the same. On 28.1.1997 when the amount was again demanded, petitioner gave a cheque for Rs. 25,000/- of State Bank of Indore, bearing cheque No. S. B-Q-106623. The cheque was deposited for collection of the amount through UKO Bank, Guna but the same could not be encashed due to want of money. On 13.2.1997 the non-petitioner No. 2 gave a registered notice to petitioner informing about the non-encashment of cheque but the petitioner has not encashed the amount within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice. The notice was received by the petitioner on 19.2.1997. Therefore, a complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna took cognizance and registered a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and framed charge accordingly and after perusal of oral and documentary evidence held the petitioner guilty as stated in para No. 1 of the order.

(3.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 that the cheque could not be encashed due to want of money in the account and the petitioner has not given any evidence in rebuttal in view of section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is not proved as alleged by the petitioner that the blank cheque was given by the petitioner to non- petitioner No. 2.