JAGDISH Vs. SATYANARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.7.2008 passed by 21st Additional Sessions Judge. Indore in Cr. A. No. 645/07, whereby the judgment dated 27.8.2007 passed by JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No. 44873/04, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as an Act) and was sentenced for four months' SI and Rs.2,60,000/- as fine was maintained, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Act on 23.7.2003, wherein it was alleged that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- were lended to the petitioner on 15.3.2003, against which petitioner executed four Hundis for Rs.20,000/-, Rs.90,000/-, Rs.37,000/- and Rs.57,000/-. It was alleged that as per the terms of Hundis executed by the petitioner the amount was repayable on 15.6.2003 for which four post-dated cheques were given by the petitioner to the respondent in security of loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. It was alleged that all the cheques issued by the petitioner were deposited by the respondent with Central Bank of India, Branch Sanyogita Ganj, Indore and the same were presented to the Banker of the petitioner fur collection, but the same were returned to the Banker of the respondent i.e. Central Bank of India with a memorandum to the effect that opening balance is insufficient. It was alleged that after receipt of bounced cheques respondent issued legal notice for demand on 25.6.2003, which was sent by registered post as well under certificate of posting. It was alleged that the notice sent by registered post returned with postal remark "intimation given". Further ease of the respondent was that in spite of the notice the amount was not paid. It was further alleged that by not making the arrangement for clearing the cheques amount petitioner has committed an offence which is punishable under Section 138 of the Act. It was alleged that after taking cognizance and also after issuing notices to the petitioner, petitioner be convicted for committing the offence.

(3.) ALONG with the petition an application was filed by the petitioner, wherein it was stated that in compliance of the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner. It was prayed that respondent be restrained from withdrawing the amount. Vide order dated 4.8.2008 it was directed that the amount deposited by the petitioner shall not be disbursed to the respondent. Upon request of the respondent that respondent be permitted to withdraw the amount which was obstructed by the petitioner, it was decided to hear the petition itself finally and the case was listed for hearing on 14th October 2008.