VARUN PASSARY Vs. MAITHAN ISPAT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section-482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-Varun Passary and another, Director of M/s. Mani Vyapar (P) Ltd., Kolkatta, inter alia, seeking to challenge the judgment dated 02.05.2009 in Criminal Revision No.25 of 2008, whereby, the lower revisional court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela came to dismiss the revision and affirm the earlier order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Rourkela in I.C.C. Case No.23 of 2007, who by order dated23.10.2008 rejected a petition filed by the petitioner seeking for direction for sending the bounced cheques to a handwriting expert for examination of the writings.

(2.) Ms. S. Ratho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought to contend that the respondent-petitioner No.1 had issued cheques as 'security' for receipt of advance from the complainant for supply of iron ore. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that the complainant had advanced a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-, whereas, the total amount payable for supply of 3600 M.Ts. of iron ores was Rs.99,69,300/-. It is contended that, since the balance amount was not paid by the complainant-purchaser, no supply of iron ore was effected. It is further averred that the complainant had advanced a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- to the respondent-petitioners against security of five blank cheques amounting to Rs.75,00,000/-.

(3.) Mr. R. Sahu-2, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, contended that the claim made by the petitioners that the cheques had been issued by them as 'security', is a clear 'after thought' and not a fact borne out on record. He submitted that while the complainant had, in fact, advanced a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- to the respondent-petitioner for supply of iron ore, in terms of their letter dated 8.9.2006, the accused, having failed to effect delivery of the iron ore even though advanced had been paid, offered to return the said advance amount of Rs.75,00,000/-, to the complainant and accordingly, the respondent-petitioner issued five cheques, each for the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards discharge of his liability. These cheques were sought to be encashed and dishonoured which are the subject matter of the present proceeding under the N.I. Act. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite party further stated that the plea of the petitioner claiming the cheques as 'security cheque' is clearly an 'after thought' and has been raised merely to delay the proceeding and to frustrate the provision of law. In this respect reliance was placed by him on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Someshwar Rao v. Samineni Nageshwar Rao & Anr., 2009 44 OCR 195.