NEMI CHAND Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner brought a complaint case against the respondent No. 1 Sushila Devi bearing Criminal Original Case No. 181/1994 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) The case and claim of petitioner as disclosed in the complaint petition was that the petitioner sold 100 Tins of Oil to respondent No. 1 vide bill No. 186 dtd. 18/3/1994. The total cost was Rs.40,600.00 @ Rs.406.00 per Tin. The respondent No. 1 was owner of Sushila & Co. On 23/3/1994 respondent No. 1 had issued cheque No. 941529 of Rs.40,600.00 as payment of cost of Oil. The respondent No. 1 had assured that the cheque would be honoured on its presentation. The petitioner presented the cheque with Bank of India, Jodhpur Branch on 23/3/1994. On 25/3/1994 the cheque was returned by the Bank on the ground that funds were insufficient in the account. Thereafter the petitioner send a notice to the respondent No. 1 on 6/4/1994 asking for payment of the amount of cheque. On 9/4/1994 respondent No. 1 sent a reply to the notice stating therein that she has not purchased any Oil from the petitioner and her signed cheques were misused by her employee Raju Manvani, to whom the respondent No. 1 had handed-over signed cheques for the use of the firm.

(3.) The petitioner examined himself during trial as PW-1 and deposed about what the petitioner had stated in the complaint petition and proved the bounced cheque, which was marked as Exhibit-1. Exhibit-2 was the return of cheque by the bank for insufficient fund. Exhibit-3 was notice dtd. 6/4/1994 and Exhibit-6 was the reply of respondent No. 1 dtd. 9/4/1994. The petitioner further examined Raju Manvani as witness No. 2, who specifically asserted that he had not issued the dishonoured cheque to the petitioner nor he had misused the cheque in collusion with the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 did not appear in the witness-box, however, in her statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C., she admitted her signature on the cheque and asserted that it was filled by Raju Manvani. PW-2 Raju Manvani has admitted that he had filled the cheque at the instructions of respondent No. 1. Raju Manvani denied that he was employee of Sushila & Co., and he asserted that he was Proprietor of his own firm.