BUDH SINGH Vs. KAKU CHITS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against if judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below vide which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 4, 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The complainant, which is a chit fund company, is said to have advanced a loan of Rs. 70,000/- to the accused-petitioner vide cheque No. 416801 dated October 29, 1991 to be drawn from UCO Bank, Panipat. The accused had to repay the debt through monthly instalments of Rs. 5,000/- each. In order to discharge the liabilities the accused issued cheque bearing number 0890025 dated March 19, 1994 for a sum of Rs. 69,648/- in favour of the complainant which was to be drawn from the accounts of the accused bearing No. 11777 UCO Bank, G.T. Road. Panipat. The cheque was dishonoured and was, received back by the complainant with the remarks Insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The information was received by the complainant vide memo, dated March 22, 1994. The complainant issued a notice dated April 2, 1994 by registered post to the accused and the guarantor and asked them to make the payment of the aforesaid cheque within 15 days from the receipt of notice by them. The accused refused to receive the registered envelope containing the notice on April 4, 1994, which was received back by the complainant on April 6, 1994. The complainant filed the complaint on May 17, 1994 against the accused-petitioner.

(3.) The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, tried the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and recorded the evidence adduced by the parties. Ultimately, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide judgment dated February 20, 2001. Against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, the accused has filed the present revision petition.