VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Udesh Kumar had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against accused Vijay Kumar, on the allegations that the complainant had advanced a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the accused as a friendly loan on 1.1.2015 for a period of 8 months. The complainant had withdrawn the said amount from his bank account of Oriental Bank of Commerce. Later on as per repeated requests of the complainant, accused issued two cheques bearing No. 000050 dated 8.8.2015 in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs and No. 000004 dated 25.8.2015 in the sum of Rs. 3 lacs, both drawn on HDFC Bank, Sector 9, Faridabad, in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation, both the cheques were returned un-paid due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused and complainant was informed in that regard vide bank return memos dated 28.8.2015. thereafter, complainant got served legal notice dated 3.9.2015 upon the accused sent as per registered AD post, but accused did not make any payment within the stipulated period, as such the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of law.

(2.) After recording of preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned to face trial. He accordingly, put in appearance and was admitted to bail. Notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of his evidence, the complainant got his own statement recorded as CW-1, reiterating on oath his version as given in the complaint, proving the cheques in question as Exhibits C-1 and C-2, cheque return memos as Exhibits C-3 and C-4, legal notice dated 3.9.2015 as Exhibit C-5 and postal receipts as Exhibits C-6 and C-7.

(3.) Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were put to him, but he denied the allegations contending that he had issued blank signed cheques to the complainant as security. He denied having received any legal notice. During his defence evidence, the accused examined Hamid Hussain, as DW-1.