SHIBA PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.9.2005. passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1. Bharatpur. whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act', for short) and by the order dated 13.4.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the cognizance order and has confirmed the cognizance order mentioned above.

(2.) IN short, the facts of the case are that Anil Scale INdustries, non-petitioner No.2, had filled a complainant under Section 138 of the Act against the present petitioner and against M/s Century Steels, non-petitioner No.3, before the learned Judicial Magistrate. IN the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner is the owner of M/s. Century Steels. According to the complainant, they had entered into a contract with M/s. Century Steels for supply of 200 Mt. Tn. M.S. Scrap at the rate of Rs.11,900 per ton excluding Tax, 200 Mt. ton. M.S. Heavy Rolling Scrap at the rate of Rs.15,900 per ton excluding Tax, and 1.00 Mt. ton. Aluminum Cable at the rate of Rs.34,000 per ton. The transaction was for a total amount of Rs.24,00.000. The said amount was advanced to M/s. Century Steels. However, subsequently, M/s. Century Steels neither supplied the goods, nor returned the amount of Rs.24,00.000. According to the complainant, repeatedly he contacted the petitioner, however, the petitioner showed his inability to supply the goods. Subsequently, a cheque dated 18.10.2004, for an amount of Rs.27,00,000, drawn on Union Bank of INdia, IRC Village, Bhubaneswar, was issued for account No.523201010013017 belonging to M/s. Century Steels. According to the complainant, when the cheque was submitted for encashment, it was dishonoured for sufficient funds. Therefore, he issued a notice. However ; despite the service of notice, neither the petitioner, nor M/s. Century Steels made the payment. Hence, the complainant filed the said complaint.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders, and examined the documents submitted before this Court.