KUMAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES KAPURTHALA Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st respondent - Sohan Lal Viz lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Annexure P -1)before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar against petitioners- (1) M/s. Kumar Rubber Industries, (2) Ashok Kumar Viz (partner of Kumar rubber Industries) and 2nd respondent-Mrs. Neelu Viz (also partner of Kumar rubber Industries), wherein the following material allegations are found.

(2.) THE complainant-Sohan Lal, his sons Ashok Kumar, Arun Kumar and neelu wife of Ashok Kumar were partners of the firm-M/s. Kumar tries as per the partnership deed dated 1. 10. 1995. On account of disputes amongst the partners, complainant-Sohan Lal and his son-Arun Kumar retired from the partnership by the retirement deed dated 17. 6. 1996. At that time, the account of the partnership were gone into and a sum of rs. 5,18,698. 33 was found due to the complainant from the partnership by way of his share of the assets which he was surrendering to the continuing partners. This amount was payable by the containing partners namely, Ashok kumar and Neelu and in order to discharge the above said liability, Ashok kumar issued cheques detailed as follows : (1) No. 466337 dated 18. 11. 1996 for Rs. 95,561/-, (2) No. 466338 dated 23. 12. 1996 for Rs. 1,23,137. 33, (3) No. 466339 dated 23. 1. 1997 for Rs. 1,50,000/-, (4) No. 466340 dated 28. 2. 1997 for Rs. 1,50,000/ -. In favour of the complainant drawn on Canara Bank Jalandhar for and on behalf of the firm and the partners. At the time of issuing the cheques, the accused assured that they would be honoured. The accused after issuing the cheques, requested the complainant to delay the presentation of these cheques for some time as he had not been able to arrange for the requisite funds to meet the cheques, which request was conceded by the complainant.

(3.) ON 24. 2. 1997, accused handed over to the complainant a banker cheque No. 800757 dated 24. 2. 1997 for Rs. 63,561/- issued by Canara bank, Mai Hiran Gate, Jalandhar and told him to adjust the said payment towards cheque No. 466337 dated 18. 11. 1996 promising that the balance amount of the cheque would be paid in cash on the next day but he did not do so.