SUNIL CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated 18.03.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2011 and order of sentence dated 21.03.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, vide which the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation to the extent of the amount of cheques i.e. Rs. 85,000/- to complainant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that criminal complaint was filed by respondent no.2-complainant against petitioner and respondents no.3 and 4 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code with the averments that on 23.05.2005, a written agreement was executed between it and respondent no.4 on behalf of respondent no.3 vide which it was appointed as super stockist for the area of Himachal Pradesh for the sale of product of accused /respondent no.3. In May, 2006, stock worth Rs. 1,73,000/- was lying with him, but accused/respondent no.3 violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, he served a legal notice dated 7.6.2006 and reminder dated 22.6.2006 to settle the dispute which were duly served upon respondents no.3 and 4. He also informed the accused persons telephonically to settle all the disputes.

(3.) In August, 2006, Mr. Joshi visited Kalka on behalf of accused. The complainant was informed that the estimated valued of the stock was about Rs. 1,30,000/- and after settlement, amount of Rs. 85,000/- was due against petitioner. The petitioner agreed to take back the stock and gave two account payee cheques bearing no.833419 dated 21.10.2006 for Rs. 40,000/- and no.833420 dated 10.10.2006 for Rs. 45,000/- drawn on Dena Bank, Branch Paschim Vihar, Delhi in discharge of the legal liability with the condition that first stock would be sent back and then the first cheque would be presented and the second cheque would be presented after ten days. The complainant presented the cheque dated 10.10.2006 to his banker, Canara Bank at Kalka on 12.10.2006 and second cheque dated 21.10.2006 on 24.10.2006. Both the cheques were returned with the remarks "Payment Stopped by the Drawer" vide memo dated 23.10.2006 and 28.10.206 respectively and information to that effect was received by him from his banker on 29.10.2006 and 1.11.2006 respectively. Thereafter, legal notice dated 23.11.2006 was sent through registered A.D and UPC was also sent to accused persons which was duly served upon them, but they failed to comply with the notice whereupon the complaint was filed. After recording preliminary evidence, the accused-petitioner was summoned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, notice of accusation was served upon the accused-petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Mr. Gautam Balaggan, proprietor of M/s. Nav Traderscomplainant in order to prove the case, examined himself as CW 3 besides examining CW 1 Anand Sexana, officer, Dena Bank and CW 2 Manmohan Sharma, Clerk, Canara Bank.