R.B.S. CHAHAL Vs. ANIL KUMAR GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant Sh.R.B.S. Chahal, Advocate, a resident of Chandigarh through attorney Sh.Sanjeev Attri had brought a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against accused Anil Kumar Gulati, a resident of Sector-22, Chandigarh on the allegations that complainant is a practicing lawyer at Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; he had got an assignment in England in legal profession, therefore he was desirous of selling his library including books, law journals, text books etc; accused Anil Kumar Gulati contacted him in that connection and purchased all the law books from the complainant; he had issued two cheques i.e. cheque No.660724 in the sum of Rs.35,000/- dated 10.8.1999 and cheque No.660730 dated 30.11.1999 in the sum of Rs.30,000/-; both the cheques were drawn at Ropar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ropar; the accused had requested the complainant not to present the cheques since according to him he would make the payment in cash; the complainant was taken in by such talks of accused, as such the period of limitation of one cheque of Rs.35,000/- got expired; when the accused failed to make the payment, then the complainant deposited cheque No.660730 for Rs.30,000/- with his banker i.e. Allahabad Bank, Chandigarh, however this cheque was not honoured by the banker of the accused and it was received back dishonoured due to insufficient funds; thereafter the complainant had issued legal notice dated 27.3.2000 to the accused calling upon them to make the payment of the cheque within 15 days of receipt of notice; the notice was sent through registered post but the same was received back, as such the complaint in question was filed. After recording of preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned. He put in appearance. Notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Act was served upon him, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of evidence of the complainant Sh.Salinder Kumar appeared as CW1, whereas complainant had got his own statement recorded as CW2 and he proved on record special power of attorney Ex.C1, cheque Ex.C2, bank memos Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, copy of the legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7, statement of account Ex.CW1/A and photocopy of the cheque returning register Ex.CW1/B. With that the evidence of the complainant stood closed. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused while denying the incriminating circumstances appearing against them pleaded that a false complaint has been filed against him. During his defence evidence, the accused produced certain documents i.e. Ex.D1 receipt, Ex.D2 reply of the notice, Ex.D3 also the receipt (wrongly marked as D2). After hearing arguments, the learned trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 138 of the Act and acquitted the accused of the notice of accusation vide judgment dated 11.10.2004. The relevant part of the judgment is being reproduced as under: