SUMITI REKHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment larder of sentence dated 29. 03. 1995 rendered by the Court of learned judicial Magistrate s1. Class, Ambala City, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six-months and to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as fine and in default of the same, to further undergo imprisonment for three months under Section 138 of The Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the act')as well as the judgment dated 14. 07. 1995 vide which the appeal was dismissed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ambaia.

(2.) SHORN of all Unnecessary details, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 23. 04. 1994, Gurpreet Singh, Complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act against accused Sumiti Rekha on the allegation that he had cordial relations with her. In January 1991, she approached him for a loan of Rs. 50,000/ - which he agreed to advance. In turn, she agreed to pay interest for the period during which the money would remain with her. On 30. 01. 1991, he advanced a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to her in the presence of Jawinder singh and other persons. She issued a post dated Cheque dated 950824 dated 03. 02. 1993 in his favour payable at State bank of India, Model Town, Ambala City, against her Bank Account No. 9389 in the said Bank. The same was duly signed by her. She kept on paying interest on the said amount till August 1991, when she left Ambala and her whereabouts were not known. In march, 1993, he came to know that she has been arrested in a case under Section 420/ 406 of L. P. C. bearing Case No. 14/93 of police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala City. He presented the aforesaid Cheque to the State bank of India, Model Town, Ambala City. The same was returned to him by Registered post on 23. 03. 1993 vide Memo dated 19. 03. 1993 with the remarks of "insufficient funds. " He gave a registered notice calling upon her to make payment of the aforesaid amount within 15 days of receipt of the same. The notice was received back with the remarks of postal authorities that the same had been refused. She failed to make the payment within the aforesaid period. The aforementioned Cheque was presented to the above said Bank within a period of six months from the date of its issue. Hence, this complaint.

(3.) AFTER recording preliminary evidence the accused was summoned to appear in the complaint. On her appearance, notice was served upon her under Section 138 of the act, to which she did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate his allegations, the Complainant examined CW-1, Anil Kumar clerk, in addition to his own statement as cw-2 and closed his evidence by tendering various documents.