RAJ KUMAR Vs. SANJIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against thejudgment dtd. 11/2/2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (learned First Appellate Court) vide which the appeal filed by respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was allowed and the judgment and order dtd. 30/9/2009 and 26/10/2009, respectively passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1 Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside.(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is the proprietor of M/S Raju and Company Cloth Merchant, Main Bazar, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. The accused used to purchase the cloth material from the complainant for his cloth shop located at Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. by making the payment to the complainant through cheques. The accused purchased the cloth from the complainant in 2007 and issued a cheque of Rs.1,20,000.00drawn on H.P.State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Bum, District Bilaspur, H.P. The complainant presented the cheque on 9/5/2007, 31/8/2007 and 29/9/2007 for payment butit was returned unpaid with the endorsements of 'Exceeded arrangement and Insufficient funds". Memos dtd. 9/5/2005, 31/8/2007 and 29/9/2007 were issued. The complainant issued a notice to the accused on 4/10/2007 through a registered post acknowledgement due. The registered letter was returned with the remarks that the accused had left the address. No money was paid to the complainant. Hence, the complaint was filed against the accused for taking action as per law.

(3.) Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, anotice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.