JUDGEMENT
A. P. Bhangale, J. -
(1.)By consent of respective counsel, the matter is taken up for final
hearing.
(2.)By this Revision Application, the revision applicants pray for
quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated
29.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal
Revision No.85/2010 whereby the learned Judge directed the trial Magistrate
to appreciate the evidence of complainant to find out whether a case is
made out under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The order dated
22.6.2010 passed by the trial Magistrate on Exh. 57 was also set aside.
(3.)It appears that a complaint was lodged by the respondent
complainant against the present revision applicants on the ground that the
accused no.1 Ajay Ramesh Bhute came in the shop of complainant in order
to buy a television of Sansui company for a sum of Rs,19,990/ on credit
with promise that the amount of price will be paid soon. Since the
proprietor of the complainant M/s Jai Matadi Electronics was on cordial
terms with the accused Ajay, he agreed to sell the TV on credit. Pursuant to
the transaction, the accused gave a cheque bearing No. 037708 dated
14.9.2006 drawn upon Wardha Nagari Sahakari Adhikosh Bank, Main
Branch, Wardha. Accordingly, the cheque was presented; but the Banker by
memo dated 15.9.2006 informed the complainant that since the account of
the accused was closed, the cheque could not be encashed. Thereafter the
complainant sent a notice dated 18.9.2006 by registered post
acknowledgment due Which was received by accused no.1 Ajay. Even
thereafter he did not pay the price. The notice was also sent under
certificate of posting, to which the accused sent reply dated 26.9.2006 and
denied the transaction categorically, contending that the cheque given was
not drawn upon his own account and it is for the complainant to seek as to
on whose account the cheque was drawn. The complainant came to know on
enquiry that the accused no.1 had deliberately, in order to harass the
complainant, gave cheque which was in fact drawn upon account belonging
to accused no.2 Ramesh Sadashiv Bhute, who was also in know of the
entire transaction. Thus, both of them had harassed the complainant
although they knew that the account was closed. Left with no option, the
complainant was constrained to prosecute them for alleged offence punishable
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ( in short "the N.I. Act")
as also under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.