NAND LAL Vs. DHIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 22/11/2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 30/3/2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manali (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 before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is an agent of M/s A.M. Fruit Commission Agent, Delhi. He used to pay advance money to the fruit growers who used to send the fruits to M/s A.M. Fruit Commission Agent for sale. The accused is a fruit grower and has an orchard under the name and style of Shringi Orchard. The accused approached the complainant and demanded ?1,00,000/- as an advance, consisting of ?60,000/- in cash and packing material worth ?40,000/-. The accused assured the complainant that he would send the fruits to M/s A.M. Fruit Commission Agent, Delhi. The complainant paid ?60,000/- in cash and supplied the packing material worth ?40,000/- to the accused. The accused failed to send the fruits from his orchard to M/s A.M. Fruit Commission Agent, Delhi. The complainant subsequently demanded ?1,00,000/- from the accused. The accused handed over a cheque for ?1,00,000/- to the complainant to return the amount. The complainant presented the cheque before the Kangra Cooperative Bank, Banjar, for encashment; however, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement of 'insufficient funds'. The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused, requesting him to pay the amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice. The accused failed to make the payment despite receiving the notice. Hence, the complaint was filed against the accused.

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