LAWS(PAT)-2013-7-188

ARVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On July 08, 2013
ARVIND KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/accused being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with an order dated 10.03.2010 passed by Smt.Shachi Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 220C of 2006(M/S Ashok Limited Finance through Kashinath Roy Vs. Arvind Kumar) rejected the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him, filed instant revision petition.

(2.) It has been alleged by the complainant that accused/petitioner had purchased five tankers through the complainant under hire purchase agreement. In due course of time, a cheque bearing no.2883591 appertaining to Rs. Rs. 62,60,000.00 was issued by the accused on 24.12.2005 which bounced on its presentation before Bank on account of insufficient fund and the same was intimated to the complainant on 05.01.2006. Accordingly, the complainant served with an Advocate notice on 06.01.2006 detailing the event as well as requesting to pay the amount within the stipulated period of fifteen days which was not at all honoured at the end of accused. On 11.01.2006 Nishant Kumar Sinha an employee was sent to the accused who also requested to make payment but failed to convince the accused. He also came to know that all the tankers were stealthily sold away by the accused. It has further been submitted that at the time of negotiation, the accused had undertook to pay the instalment regularly and putting belief upon his undertaking finance was provided.

(3.) After having the appearance of the petitioner/accused before the court below on account of taking of cognizance under Sec. 420 of the Penal Code as well as 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the trial commenced and altogether two P.Ws. have been examined before charge as well as relevant documents including cheque, copy of the legal notice etc. have been made an exhibit of the record. Then thereafter, the case has been posted for charge at which stage, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to discharge him which after hearing both sides, the learned lower court rejected whereupon instant revision petition has been filed.