SUBHASH SAHNI Vs. AURO SPINNING MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE record of the case has been received, with the consent of the learned Coun sel for the parties, the re-vision has been finally heard.

(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27. 4. 2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Salon in Cr. A. No. 5nl/10 of 2006/05 confirming the conviction of petitioner under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short Act) recorded by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh on 30. 7. 2005/ 3. 8. 2005 in Criminal Complaint No. 47/3 of 1999.

(3.) THE facts in brief are that petitioner in the years 1997-98 was the Managing Director of M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels ltd. Company based at Bhiwani in haryana. It had business transactions with complainant M/s. Auro Spinning Mills, a company based at Nalagarh, Himachal pradesh. The complainant company had supplied yarn to the company of the petitioner and petitioner allegedly issued five cheques of different amounts on different dates towards the payment of the material supplied by the complainant company. The cheques issued by the petitioner were presented by the complainant company in State bank of Patiala, however, those were bounced and M/s. Bhiwani Denim Apparel ltd. was accordingly informed about the dishonouring of these cheques. On receipt of information from the Bank a composite notice dated 17. 1. 1998 was served on petitioner and others requesting to make the payment. This notice was sent through courier as well as through registered post and was duly served on the petitioner and other directors of the company. The petitioner and M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. failed to pay the amount and accordingly a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by the respondent against the petitioner and others. One accused Ram Lal sahni died during the pendency of the complaint and proceedings against him abated, proceedings against accused other than the petitioner and company were quashed by this Court and only two accused namely petitioner and company remained to face the trial.