BISHAN JYOTI SHARMA Vs. GOPAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this revision, the accused -petitioner has canvassed the correctness of the order dated 4.12.2000 propounded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, in compliant/case No. 81/1998, whereby prayer made in the application preferred by the petitioner to drop the proceedings on the ground that notice of demand served upon the accused by the complainant is vague and defective and, therefore, does not occasion any cause of action to prefer the complaint by the complainant, has been declined.

(2.) FACTS relevant for the disposal of this revision in resume may be noticed. The petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 13,000 and when presented for the realization of the said amount to the concerned Bank, the cheque was returned uncashed on 12.9.1998 with an endorsement as "insufficient funds" as per the memo issued by the Bank. It is also stated that the complainant had to receive a sum of Rs. 69,800 from the accused and the cheque issued for Rs. 13,000 formed a part of the aforesaid amount. A notice was served upon the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by the holder in due course from the Bank, regarding return of the cheque as indicated on account of "insufficient funds" in making demand for the payment of an amount of Rs. 69,800 besides stating the cheque amount separately in the notice. The drawer of the cheque, however, failed to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee/holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, which accrued a cause of action to the complainant to prefer a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the petitioner -accused entered appearance in the proceedings cognizance of which the Trial Court has taken on the complaint of the holder of the cheque, an application for dropping the proceedings was initiated on the ground of notice served by the complainant being defective and vague, which, however, stood declined by the Trial Court and became subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -accused, at length and also perused the relevant provisions of law touching the matter in controversy.