CAPITAL LEASING AND FINANCE CO. Vs. NAVRATTAN JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant-appellant M/s. Capital Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. in this appeal has assailed the order dated 3.2.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby the complaint of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 ('N.I. Act' for short) has been dismissed and the respondent acquitted.

(2.) THE complainant-appellant M/s. Capital Leasing and Finance Company filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act against the respondent on the allegations that the complainant is a partnership firm having its registered office at Chandigarh and A.S. Bindra in its partner who has been duly authorised to file the complaint. It is stated that the respondent issued a cheque dated 13.1.1993 for an amount of Rs. 1.00 lac drawn on the New Bank of India, Sector 26-D, Chandigarh to the complainant towards repayment/discharge of his debt liability towards the appellant-firm. The said cheque was duly presented to the bankers of the respondent by the complainant (appellant) through their bank but was returned back unpaid with the endorsement of "Insufficient Funds" by the Bankers of the respondent. After the cheque was returned as unpaid, the complainant issued a notice of demand to the respondent for the payment of Rs. 1.00 lac being value of the returned cheque. The said notice was duly sent to the respondent, who despite the notice, did not make the necessary payment. The respondent, it is alleged, has thus committed an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and is liable to be punished.

(3.) THE appellant examined Arvinder Singh, (CW-1) another partner of the appellant-firm, as a witness. He was examined after notice had been served on the respondent. He reiterated the version, as stated in the complaint. Arvinder Singh (CW-1) was cross-examined, in which he stated that the partnership firm in the name of complainant was not a registered one. They were having partnership deed but he could not produce the same in Court on the date of recording his evidence. It was also stated that he could not produce any proof to the effect that he had extended loan of Rs. 1.00 lac to the accused and, thereafter voluntarily stated that the payment was made by cheque. It is stated that his brother-in-law Shri Rupinder Singh introduced him with the respondent in the beginning and their firm had extended the alleged loan of Rs. 1.00 lac for the first time to the accused in the year 1992. This was agreed to be paid by the respondent with an interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month. He was further cross-examined at some length.