JASBIR SINGH SODHI Vs. G.S. BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment of acquittal dtd. 13/3/2008 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, the appellant/complainant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class concluded that the appellant had failed to prove the notice of acquisition, served upon the respondents/accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 138 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and the respondents were ordered to be acquitted of the same.

(2.) The case set up by the appellant/complainant is that he had business dealings with the respondents/accused for the supply of plastic bottles of various sizes since September 1997. The respondents had been making payments of all the goods regularly. As per the appellant, Cheque No. 473965 dtd. 17/12/1997 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Bhatinda for Rs.90,000.00 was handed over by the respondents to the appellant towards certain outstanding payments. However, on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. He immediately contacted the respondents, who apologized for this incidence and promised to make the payment in due course. On the assurance by the respondents, the appellant continued to supply goods to the respondents regularly. It had been stated that the appellant supplied goods to the respondents on 7/1/1998, 9/1/1998, 13/1/1998, 24/1/1998 and 30/1/1998, which was outstanding. The appellant contacted the respondent No. 1 number of times on telephone, however, only verbal assurance was given and the payment was delayed. Even after repeated requests, the accounts could not be settled. On the assurance by the respondents, the appellant again presented the cheque, but the same was again dishonoured with the remarks 'Exceeds Arrangement' vide memo dtd. 11/4/1998. The appellant sent a legal notice dtd. 16/4/1998 to the accused through registered AD posts on 17/4/1998. However, the said notice was received undelivered on 1/5/1998 with the report that the addressee could not be found after several visits. Still further, the copies of the legal notice dtd. 16/4/1998 were again sent by the appellant to the respondents vide registered AD on 6/6/1998 and 17/6/1998. However, those were returned back with the same remarks on 20/6/1998 and 27/6/1998. After the appellant made several efforts to serve the notice on the accused by sending copies of the legal notice dtd. 16/4/1998 through courier but the respondents could not be served. Finally on 4/9/1998, the appellant succeeded in serving the notice on the accused at their residence. The respondent No. 2 received notice and signed her acknowledgement on a copy of the notice. The appellant further alleged in the complaint that after receipt of the illegal notice, the accused was under a legal obligation to make the payment of Rs.90,000.00 within a period of 15 days. However, no such payment was made and, consequently, the complaint was filed by the appellant.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, I have gone through the trial Court record carefully.