RAJESH AND COMPANY Vs. PARMODH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Respondent-Parmodh Kumar had faced trial in a complaint filed by the applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua dishonour of cheques. Trial Court, vide order dated 4.3.2015, ordered the acquittal of the respondent. Hence, the present application under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per complaint are that the accused had business dealing with complainant since long and complainant supplied goods to firm M/s Deena Bandhu Textile on credit basis, however, accused had been making payment for those goods from his another proprietorship concern M/s Parmodh Kumar and Sons. The accused, who is proprietor of Deena Bandhu Textiles as well as Parmodh Kumar and Company, in order to discharge his partial debit/legal liability, had issued five cheques i.e. Cheque bearing No. 110906 dated 18.5.2011 for L 10,000/-, No. 110907 dated 23.5.2011 for L 10,430/-, No.110873 dated 12.3.2011 for L 12,244/-, No. 110791 dated 28.1.2011 for L 15000/- and cheque No. 110905 dated 14.5.2011 for L 10,000/-, all drawn on Bank of India, Mall Road, Amritsar, in favour of complainant. At the time of issuing said cheques, accused assured the complainant that the said cheques, upon presentation, shall certainly be encashed. On the assurance of accused, complainant presented the said cheques for its clearance with its banker namely Canara Bank, D.S.Market, Amritsar, but the same were dishonoured with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement" vide respective memos dated 22.7.2011. Thereafter, complainant served the accused with legal notice dated 26.7.2011 through Registered post but despite the service of legal notice, accused has failed to make the payment to complainant till date. Hence, the present complaint is filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(for brevity 'the Act').

(3.) After the preliminary evidence was recorded, the respondent was summoned to face trial and, thereafter, pre-charge evidence was led.