GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been maintained by the petitioner- accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') against the impugned order, dated 18.11.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in Case No.92/2 of 13/2012, titled State Bank of Patiala vs. Gulshan Kumar , wherein evidence of the accused was closed.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') maintained a complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act) against the petitioner-accused. As per the petitioner-accused, he had applied for a term loan for the purpose of purchasing truck and the term loan of Rs.14,75,000/-, was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner-accused. It is further averred that the petitioner- accused, failed to repay the loan amount and in lieu of discharging existing liability, petitioner-accused issued a cheque bearing No.0001320, dated 22.9.2012, for a sum of Rs.10,37,039/-, as repayment of the outstanding loan amount. The respondent- complainant presented the said cheque for collection, in his account, which was ultimately returned for 'Insufficient funds'.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused has argued that as a matter of indulgence, one more opportunity may be granted to the accused to examine the witnesses and as far as witness No.1, is concerned, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, now known as State Bank of India, Branch at Ghandir, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur (H.P), the learned Court below may issue dasti summon to witness No.1. So far as, witnesses No.2 and 3, namely, Gopal Singh and Kishori Lal, are concerned, the petitioner-accused will produce his witnesses on his self responsibility. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant-Bank has vehemently argued that the case is now listed for arguments and the present petition has been filed, only to delay the matter and prays for dismissal of the petition.