D K SAHA Vs. DEBENDRA DHOLKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -An order of conviction and sentenced passed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court also the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil & Sessions Court, Calcutta has been assailed in this revisional application.

(2.) The accused/petitioner is undisputedly the proprietor of D.K. International having its registered office at 2B, Grant Street, Calcutta. The complainant/opposite party is the Director of M/s. Siewart and Dholakia Ltd. having its registered office at P-35, India Exchange Place, Calcutta. The complainant/opposite party filed a complaint on 15.4.92 against the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, inter alia, alleging that the accused/petitioner in discharge of his existing liability issued an A/C Payee Cheque being Cheque No. 021573 dated 31.1.92 of Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Chakraberia Branch in favour of the complainant's company M/s. Siewart and Dholakia Ltd. The complainant/opposite party presented the cheque for encashment with its Banker, namely Bank of America, 8, India Exchange Place, Calcutta. But the said cheque was dishonored on 10.2.92 with remarks "Insufficient Funds". Thereafter, the complainant/opposite party sent a notice on 14.2.92 through his learned advocate under registered post with A/D demanding the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. It has been inter alia stated by the complainant/opposite party that the notice was received by the accused/petitioner on 2.3.92, but it appears that the accused/petitioner did not take any step either to pay the amount or to send any reply to the said notice. Therefore, the complainant/opposite party was obliged to file a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) being Case No. C-586/92. Process was issued against the petitioner, which in course of time was transferred to the Court of 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for its disposal.

(3.) The accused/petitioner has, however, denied his liability to pay the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant/opposite party. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had no notice under section 138 of the said Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount.