RAVI SHANKAR GUPTA Vs. BABULAL DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed against the order dated 28/07/2018 passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Anuppur, in Criminal Revision No.17/2018 whereby the revision preferred by the Petitioner against the order taking cognizance dated 03/07/2018 passed by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anuppur, was dismissed, thereby sustaining the order summoning the Petitioner to stand trial.

(2.) The Petitioner was an accused in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The allegation in the said complaint was that the Respondent had given the petitioner an amount of rupees eight lacs for the supply of cement and iron rods, which the Petitioner did not deliver and when the complainant demanded the refund of rupees eight lacs, the Petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 045326 dated 01/03/16 drawn on Axis Bank, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. The said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds. After giving legal notice to the Petitioner on 31/03/16, the Respondent filed a complaint case against the Petitioner on 11/04/16. The trial court proceeded and recorded evidence and thereafter vide order dated 28/04/17 passed in Criminal Case No.270/2018, acquitted the Petitioner on the ground that the complaint was filed before the statutory period and, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken.

(3.) Against the said order, the Respondent preferred a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. which was registered before this court as M.Cr.C. No.8358/2017 and was withdrawn on 03/07/17 by an order of this court granting liberty to the Respondent to file a fresh complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a fresh complaint on 06/07/17 under section 138 read with 144 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner filed a written objection that since the Petitioner was already tried, prosecuted and acquitted for the said offence then, as per the provisions of section 300 Cr.P.C, he was protected by the rule of autrefois acquit and, therefore, could not be tried again. The learned trial court rejected this objection against which the Petitioner went to the court of sessions which is also rejected by the impugned order.