SURAJ TRADING CO. Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 19/10/2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Panipat, whereby, the respondent was ordered to be acquitted of the notice of accusation.

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution, appellant No. 2/complainant M/s Suraj Trading Company and appellant No.1/complainant were doing the business of sale of whole sale supply of Ghee, Maida, Sugar and other Kiryana articles. The respondent/accused had been making purchases of Ghee, Maida etc., from the appellants and was getting the bills thereof in the name of his Firm M/s Faristha Foods. The respondent purchased Ghee, Maida etc., from the appellants during the period from November 2001 to 4/9/2002 worth Rs.73,180.00. A sum of Rs.6750.00 was outstanding for the previous purchases. Consequently, the respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.79,930.00 to the appellant on account of purchase of various Kiryana articles and necessary bills were issued to him. Finally, the respondent/accused admittedly issued a cheque No. 212876 dtd. 30/9/2002 for a sum of Rs.75,000.00 in the name of appellant No. 1. The cheque was presented by the appellant in their account No. 3134 in Punjab National Bank, New Sabji Mandi, Panipat. However, the same was returned to them by their bank vide memo dtd. 18/10/2002 for the want of funds in the account of the respondent. The appellants issued a statutory notice dtd. 22/10/2002 to the respondent in the registered AD/UPC cover through their counsel, calling upon him to make the payment within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, criminal proceedings would be initiated against him. The respondent refused to receive the notice and ultimately the appellants were constrained to file a complaint against the respondent under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act').

(3.) Vide order and judgment dtd. 3/10/2006 passed by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat, the respondent was ordered to be convicted for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000.00. However, on appeal being preferred by the respondent, he was ordered to be acquitted by the appellate Court. Challenging the said acquittal, the appellants/complaint have preferred the present appeal before this Court.