MOHIT BANSAL Vs. ANKIT POLYWEAVE INDUSTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CRR No. 1385 of 2018 and CRR No. 1412 of 2018; as both the petitions have arisen from the common judgment and order dated 21.3.2018, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby, he has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner while upholding the judgment and order dated 24.11.2017, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiwani, convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with award of compensation to the complainant equivalent to the cheque amount in each of these petitions.

(2.) Although, initially, two complaints were filed by the complainant for dishonour of two cheques. However, the facts are almost similar in both the cases. Therefore, for reference, the facts as involved in CRR No. 1385 of 2018, are taken up for consideration.

(3.) Brief facts of this case are that the complainant M/s Ankit Polyweave Industry filed a complaint against the present petitioner and his firm under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was averred in the said complaint that the present petitioner visited the complainant at Bhiwani and purchased goods from him. In lieu of those goods, as part payment of consideration, the petitioner handed over a cheque bearing No. 990230 dated 4.12.2014 amounting to Rs. 1,62,000, drawn on State Bank of India, Delhi. The complainant deposited the cheque in his bank for encashment but the same was returned with remarks Insufficient Funds vide memo dated 5.12.2014. Thereafter, the complainant had given notice dated 15.12.2014 to the petitioner and his firm demanding amount of the cheque. This notice was duly received by the petitioner. However, neither reply was given nor the cheque amount was repaid by the petitioner or his firm. To prove his case, the complainant has led in evidence the documents showing issuance of cheque; return of the same by bank as dishonoured; legal notice and the postal receipt for the notice having been sent to the petitioner. Besides this, Ex.C1/H to Ex.C1/M are the invoices/bills of the goods supplied to the petitioner. Ex. CW1/N is the statement of account of the complainant; showing the previous transactions with the present petitioner qua the supply of similar goods. Besides this, the other documents like income tax return; aadhar card; PAN card and one sale deed were also produced in evidence. It is further recorded by the trial Court that in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner himself has admitted the signatures on the cheque. But he has taken defence that the cheque was issued to the complainant as security of advance payment for supplying the goods to him, however, those goods were never supplied by the complainant as promised. Therefore, he has taken a stand that there was no legal enforceable liability against the petitioner.