MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the aftermath of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic twenty-one days' nationwide lockdown has been declared, in the midst of which filing of the present application, purportedly under Section 482 read with Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been accepted by this Court, through e-mail, under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and it has been posted before me for hearing through video-conference. The petition is defective in so many respects, as has been pointed out by the Stamp Reporter. Many of such defects relate to non-compliance of the filing procedure laid down under the Patna High Court Rules.

(2.) The petitioner is an accused in Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 269 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) My attention has been drawn by Mr. Rakesh Chander Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, to page 34 of the present application which is the written statement of the informant and the basis for registration of the First Information Report. It is alleged in the written statement that the informant runs a business in the name and style of Maa Vaishnav Galla Bhandar at Samastipur and deals in supply of mustard oil and other edible oils. The petitioner is the Director of S.B.O. Exports Private Limited, New Delhi. Certain supply was made by the informant to the Company for a sum of Rs.4,96,897/-. The petitioner, in his capacity as Director of the Company, had allegedly issued and delivered, at Samastipur, a cheque on 18.06.2018 in favour of the informant of the said amount of Rs.4,96,897/- for having delivered edible oils to the petitioner. The petitioner had requested the informant to present the cheque for encashment in July, 2018. Allegedly, when he presented the cheque, the same stood dishonoured because of insufficiency of fund in the account of the petitioner. There is statement made by the informant that on the petitioner's request, he had again deposited the cheque for encashment, which again stood dishonoured for the same reason. Requisite statutory notice was issued to the petitioner for payment of the amount in question. The petitioner, however, did not pay the amount, which compelled the informant to lodge the First Information Report, the informant alleges.