HARMAIJIT KAUR Vs. SARAN SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) titioner-complainant has filed this revision against impugned order dated 18-2-1998 whereby she has not been allowed to adduce additional evidence to prove the date on which statutory notice sent by her was served on the respondent-accused.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the Act) on the allegation that the accused in due discharge of her financial liability issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 2 lacs in her favour. When the cheque was presented for encashment, in the bank it was dishonored due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice to the respondent-accused to pay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of notice. This notice was sent on 6-10-1995. When the complaint was filed its postal receipt. UPC receipt and AD receipt were also filed along with the complaint. Since, the accused-respondent failed to pay the amount of Rs. 2 lacs to the complainant-petitioner she filed this complaint under Section 138 of the Act on 15-11-1995.

(3.) Complainants preliminary evidence was recorded and on being, satisfied, that there is a prima facie case, accused-respondent was summoned to face the trial. The whole of the evidence was recorded in the complaint case. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Accused herself entered the witness box and was examined in her defence. The case was adjourned for hearing final arguments. Arguments were partly heard. At that stage, accused-respondent filed an application under Section 245 Cr. P.C. to discharge her alleging that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant has not complied with the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. Thereafter the complainant filed an application uj sec. 311 Cr. P.C. and sought permission that she be allowed to examine Sub Postmaster. Post Office, Sector 15. Chandigarh to prove the date on which the notice dated 6-10-1995 sent by her to the accused was served on her. This application was declined by the impugned order.