LAWS(P&H)-2022-7-267

ASHOK KUMAR Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

Decided On July 07, 2022
ASHOK KUMAR Appellant
V/S
PAWAN KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dtd. 28/1/2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby the accusedrespondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the present complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the allegations that the accused had taken a cash loan of Rs.90,000.00 from him in the month of April, 2017 and in discharge of his legal liability had issued a post dated cheque bearing No.000043 dtd. 26/5/2017 drawn at HDFC Bank, Branch Grain Market, Sri Muktsar Sahib amounting to Rs.90,000.00. It was further submitted that the complainant having his account at Canara Bank, Branch Sri Muktsar Sahib presented the above said cheque for encashment on 26/5/2017 to his banker and then his banker sent the said cheque to the banker of the accused i.e. HDFC Bank, Branch New Grain Market, Sri Muktsar Sahib on the same date i.e. 26/5/2017 and the said banker returned the cheque in question being dishonoured along with memo dtd. 26/5/2017 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" to Canara Bank, Sri Muktsar Sahib and thereafter Canara Bank, Branch Sri Muktsar Sahib returned the said cheque along with covering letter dtd. 26/5/2017 to the complainant. It was further submitted that the complainant had given the above said amount to the accused out of his saving which he had kept at home made from his part time work and salary from his job. A legal notice dtd. 13/6/2017 was issued by the complainant through his advocate to the accused but the same was not received by the accused intentionally and the same was received back by the counsel of complainant, meaning thereby the accused was having full knowledge of notice. However, the accused did not make the payment of above said cheque to the complainant till the date, leading to the filing of the present complaint.

(3.) In preliminary evidence, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and thereafter the complainant closed his preliminary evidence. Finding sufficient ground against the accused, he was summoned to face trial for offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.