JAWAHAR LAL BANSAL Vs. MOHINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHINDER Singh of Messrs Metro Trading Company, Ludhiana, filed a complaint against Jawahar Lal Bansal and others under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the latter had made purchases from him on July 13, 1970, at Ludiana, of wool waste and art silk worth Rs. 58866. 73. As per direction of Jawahar Lal Bangal and others, the goods were de patched in three lots on September 15 and 20, 1976 and October 1, 1976. He insisted the payment of price in cash. Jawahar Lal Bansa) and others represented that they were sound businessmen In as much as their business run into lakhs of rupees. Their business is at Aera with branch office at Amritsar. They have an account with Vijay Bank Limited Amritsar, wherein more than rupees two lakhs is deposited. On this representation, he agreed to accept a post -dated cheque dated July 22, 1977(sic), towards price, which was not honoured when presented on due date. Mohinder Singh alleged that he had thereby been cheated. He prayed that proceedings under Section 406, 420 and 109. Indian Penal Code, against Jawahar Lal Bansal and others be initiated

(2.) THE trial Magistrate summoned Jawahar Lal Bansal and others to stand trial under Section 420. Indian Penal Code, by his order dated August 30, 1977. Sanjay Bansal, one of the accused, who was summoned, preferred a revision against the order of the trial Court dated August 30, 1977, which was dismissed on November 18 1978, being time barred. Jawahar Lal Bansal filed the present petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying that the proceedings aga.inst them be quashed inasmuch as the complaint of Mohinder Singh does not make out any offence against them.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Respondents has argued that the representation made by the Petitioner and his companions to the Respondent make out a prima facie case against them under Section 4"0, Indian Penal Code. Reliance has been placed on Mutari Lal v. Shiv Parkash etc, 1971 Cri. L. J. 96., wherein it was held that the intention of the drawer at the time the cheque is issued is very material in order to determine whether the intention of the accused was to make the payment or otherwise. It was further held that a distinction will have to be drawn between a case where a post dated cheque is issued in order to discharge an existing liability and a case where it is issued against delivery of goods, property or cash with an assurance that it well be encashed when presented to the bank in due course In one case it may amount only to a breach of promise if the cheque is not encashed while in the other case it may be prima facie evidence of an intention to cheat.