V.K. TANEJA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts are that complainant non-petitioner Vivek Kumar filed a complaint against the accused-petitioner through V.K. Taneja on 17.7.1995 under Sec. 420 Penal Code and 138 (Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the act of-1881 ") in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar with the averments that Bank of Baroda, Branch Alwar sanctioned loan to the complainant. On demand by the bank, the complainant had to submit quotation o Rs. 25,000.00 for supply of goods by accused. Thereupon, the Bank issued a draft of Rs. 25,000.00 in the name of accused, which was delivered to the accused on 7.5.95. The accused received the amount of this draft, but he did not supply the goods according to the terms and conditions of quotation, hence the complainant demanded of Rs. 25,000.00. The accused issued a cheque of Rs. 25,000.00 in the name of Bank of Baroda, Alwar. This cheque was sent to Syndicate Bank on 19.5.95 for clearance but on account of paucity of fund in the account of the accused, the cheque was returned and it was again sent to the same bank for clearance on 8.6.95 and a letter dated 8.6.95 along with cheque was also sent to the accused by Bank of Baroda to arrange the payment but the cheque was dishonoured again on 22.6.95. Thereafter, the Bank of Baroda returned this cheque to the complainant on 5.7.95. The complainant went to the accused and demanded the money but he refused to make the payment on 15.7.95. Hence, this complainant.

(2.) After making inquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 vide order dated 31.10.95. This order was not challenged by the accused. The substance of the offence was read over to the accused on 22.7.96. Against this order, revision under Sec. 397 Crimial P.C. filed by the accused was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Alwar vide order dated 20.12.97. Hence, this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.PC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was necessary for the complainant to give notice in writing within 15 days of the receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and since no notice was given by the complainant, both the orders of the courts below deserve to be quashed and the entire proceedings against the petitioner should be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this High Court delivered in Chiman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1997(3) 1446 . On the other hand. it was argued by learned counsel for the complainant non-petitioner No. 2 that notice dated 8.6.96, after return of the cheque unpaid was given to the accused by the Bank of Baroda and evidence to this effect is available on the record and there is no reason to quash the proceedings when the trial was in progress.