SUBEDAR SUMER SINGH Vs. AMIT ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Relevant facts for decision of this Criminal Revision Petition are that the complainant-respondent instituted a complaint under S. 138 of 'The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881' (for short 'the Act of 1881') in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 13-3-1993 against the accused appellant and one Mahaveer Singh with the averments that the complainant Amitabh to the proprietor of the complainant concern carrying on business of supply of Cement. The accused Sumer Singh commenced purchasing cement from the complainant. Initially, he was making the payment. Subsequently, the complainant supplied cement on Credit to the accused Sumer Singh. Giving some of the details of four cheques which were returned unpaid, it was averred that Sumer Singh along with Sandeep Bhatnagar and Naresh came to the office of the complainant on 23-3-1993 and assured the payment of earlier dues with interest and requested for further supply of cement and delivered two cheques respectively for Rs. 10,000.00 and Rs. 13800.00. The complainant presented the cheques in the bank account of accused Sumer Singh. Both the cheques were dishonoured with the remark of insufficient funds in the bank account. The Complainant went to the accused Sumer Singh but he did not make the payment. Thereafter registered notice was sent which was received by him on 12-8-1983. The accused Sumer Singh replied this notice on 30-8-1983 but no payment was made.

(2.) Learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. took cognizance against Sumer Singh and discharged another accused Mahaveer Singh vide order dated 12-1-1994. Accused Sumer Singh pleaded not guilty. The complainant apart from himself, examined P.W. 2, Naresh Agarwal and PW. 3 Sandeep Bhatnagar. The accused was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. He denied the evidence and stated that he did not purchase any goods from the complainant. The accused Sumer Singh apart from himself examined DW. 2 Raghuveer Singh, DW. 3 Jaipal and DW. 4 Nanji Lal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 7-11-1998 convicted and sentenced the accused Sumer Singh under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.25,000.00, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. It was also directed that this amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation.

(3.) The accusedSumer Singh filed criminal appeal No. 82/1997 which was dismissed by Special Judge (Sati Prevention) Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dated 20-5-1998. Hence this revision.