NARINDER KUMAR Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 21-4-1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan whereby the judgement dated 29-4-1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan whereby the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and a sum of Rs. 5000/- out of the amount of fine, if deposited, was to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation, had been set aside and the accused has been acquitted, the appellant-complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the complainant') has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant and the accused are agriculturists and also are carrying on the business as forest lessees. The accused allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant and in lieu thereof, the accused issued cheque dated 20-11-1989 Ex. PW-1/A in favour of the complainant. When the cheque was presented to the bankers, it was returned with the endorsement "refer to drawer" meaning thereby that it could not be encashed. The complainant, therefore, issued a notice dated 16-1-1990, a copy whereof is Ex. PW-1/C to the accused which was received by the accused vide AD Ex. PW-1/E on January 22, 1990. As per the notice, the accused was called upon to make the payment of the amount of the cheque within 15 days from the receipt of the notice, but he failed to do so. The complainant again presented the cheque in dispute to the bankers in the month of February, 1990 when it was again returned with the endorsement "refer to drawer". The complainant, in the meanwhile, filed a complaint under Sections 406 and 420, IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). On the said complaint, accused came to be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, who convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, who vide the impugned judgement, set aside the conviction and sentence.