SANDEEP KUMAR GARG Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioner-accused had made an application for discharge in complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That application was dismissed by the judicial Magistrate, Panchkula vide order dated 4. 4. 2001. Against that the order, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act was filed by Sandeep Kumar Aggarwal, respondent. It comes out that one cheque of Rs. 30,000/- dated 7. 7. 1996 was issued by Sandeep kumar Garg accused/petitioner whereas another cheque of Rs. 6300/- dated 24. 5. 1996 was issued by Sandeep Kumar and Saroj Garg, petitioners for accurate Projects and Capital Services Ltd. Both these cheques had been presented in the Bank and returned with the observation that the accounts were closed. It also comes out that on 11. 11. 1996, a notice was issued by the complainant to Sandeep Kumar only for both the cheques to make the payment along with interest within 15 days. The complaint was then filed on 2. 12. 1996.

(3.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the notice had been served on 28. 11. 1996 and 15 days period had not expired and the complaint could not be filed on 2. 12. 1996. Further, the contention of the petitioner was that no notice was issued to Saroj Garg nor notice was issued to the company.