SATISH VERMA Vs. VARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant Varinder Kumar had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against accused Satish Verma son of Sh.Amar Singh, resident of Urban Estate, Karnal on the allegations that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from him for his personal requirement in October, 2002 agreeing to return the said amount with interest @ Rs.2% per month; the accused had issued a post dated cheque bearing No.0098504 dated 10.2.2003 drawn on Union Bank of India, Sector-6 Branch, Karnal in favour of the complainant; in February, 2003, the complainant approached the accused for repayment; the accused requested the complainant to present the cheque after due date; the complainant accordingly did so by presenting it with his banker i.e. Bank of Punjab Ltd., Kunjpura Road, Karnal, which in turn sent it to banker of the accused for clearance but the cheque was received back uncashed due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused and the complainant was informed accordingly vide memo of the bank dated 28.2.2003; thereafter the complainant served a legal notice dated 14.4.2003 upon the accused calling upon him to make the payment of cheque amount within one month from the date of issuance of the cheque, however, the legal notice was received back undelivered because the accused had refused to accept the same; a copy of the legal notice was also sent under postal certificate, which was duly received by the accused but he failed to comply with the notice. Thereafter, the complainant brought the complaint in question in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Karnal.

(2.) After recording preliminary evidence, the accused was ordered to be summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act vide order dated 9.8.2003. He put in appearance and was admitted to bail. Notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Act was served upon him, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) During the course of his evidence, the complainant got his statement recorded as CW1 and repeated on oath his case as given in the complaint. He proved various documents i.e. original cheque as Ex.C2, memo dated 28.2.2003 as Ex.C3, copy of legal notice dated 14.3.2003 as Ex.C4, postal receipt as Ex.C5, UPC receipt as Ex.C6, registered envelope as Ex.C7 and registered AD as Ex.C8.