SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. PRITAM SINGH MACHINEWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 20-2-2001 propounded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur in File No. 7 of 1997. By the aforesaid order, the Trial Court acquitted the accused for offence under S. 138, Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the ground that requirement of Clause (c) of the proviso to S.138 of the Act has not been fulfilled.

(2.) Facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal summarily may be recited. Appellant Subhash Chander engaged in the business of poultry feed filed a complaint in the Court of CJM, Udhampur in alleging that he had supplied the poultry feed to Pritam Singh accused respondent and an amount of Rs.36,602.00 was outstanding against him. The accused, when approached by the Complainant, issued a Cheque No. 659782 for the amount outstanding against him to be drawn on State Bank of India Branch, Garhi, in discharge of his liability, on 15-5-1997. The cheque was dishonoured, when presented in the Bank by Complainant and returned with a memo of "Insufficient Fund", on 20-5-1997 under Clause (b) of the proviso to S. 138 of the Act, after the dishonour of the cheque, the payee or the holder in due course made a demand for payment by issuing notice dated 3-6-1997 in writing to the drawer of the cheque on the return of the cheque as unpaid. It is also stated in the complaint that no payment was made after service of notice on the drawer of the cheque within the stipulated period and thus accrued a cause of action under Clause (c) proviso to S. 138 of the Act, hence complaint.

(3.) The Trial Court took cognizance of the complaint made under S. 142(b) of the Act and after recording evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint in taking a view that there is nothing on record to show as to when the notice of demand was served on the drawer and that the cause of action arises only on failure to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice as is contemplated by Clause (c) of proviso to S. 138 of the Act, which became the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.