DEEPAK SOOD Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has filed the instant appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in short the Act -.

(2.) PRECISELY , the case of the complainant is that he was engaged in side business of sale and purchase of shares of the Companies, under the head and style of M/s. Hi Tech Investments - and the respondent -accused was his customer. It is alleged that on 3.8.1993, the respondent purchased 100 shares of Tisco Company at the rate of 180 per share and his commission was 7.50 per share. As such, the total value of the purchase shares by the respondent was 18750/ -. The respondent issued a cheque Exhibit P1 to the tune of rupees 14,750/ - drawn on State Bank of India, Shimla Branch and agreed to pay the balance in cash. When the cheque was presented for encashment into the said Bank in the first week of January, 1994 through his Bankers Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shimla, it was returned to the complainant with the endorsement insufficient funds -. when this fact was brought to the notice of the respondent, he told the complainant to present it again and also assured to pay the balance amount of Rupees 4000/ - at the earliest but during the second presentation on 20.1.1994, the cheque was again returned to the complainant with the same endorsement on the very next day. Hence, the complainant sent notice which was received by the respondent. The respondent vide his reply dated 14.2.1994, admitted the aforesaid facts and built up a false story asking him to release his 200 shares. Hence the complaint was filed before the learned trial Court under the aforesaid Section to proceed against the respondent.

(3.) THE respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied any debt liability as alleged. Rather, he raised the defense that in fact, he issued the cheque on 4.8.1993 for rupees 14,750/ - on the condition that it would be encashed only on the release of his 200 shares of Tisco Company which were booked by him against cash payment made on 13.6.1993. Since 200 shares were not released, therefore, the payment against cheque was stopped. The respondent did not lead any evidence in defense. After completion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent against which the instant appeal has been filed.