HARYANA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES Vs. LAXMI AGRO INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 18.7.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, vide which complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited against Laxmi Agro Industries regarding dishonouring of the cheque dated 23.3.1994 for a sum of Rs. 20,21,521/- against the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') was dismissed and he was acquitted.

(2.) FACTS in the background of the case are that the complainant Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') was dealing in supply of iron and steel to small scale industries. The respondent was also one of its dealers. On 27.2.1994, the respondent purchased material for a sum of Rs. 29,66,721/- against bill No. 10672 dated 27.2.1994. Out of the aforesaid amount, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 9,45,200/- against the current cheque dated 28.2.1994 and for the balance amount a post dated cheque No. 765504 dated 23.3.1994 for a sum of Rs. 20,21,521/- was issued. On 23.3.1994, when the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment with its bankers, then he was informed by Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, Naraina, New Delhi (drawee bank) that the cheque was dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds. Then complainant issued notice to the respondent on 7.4.1994 and thereafter also personally requested the respondent for payment and the latter assured that in case the cheque is presented again, it will be honoured. On the said assurance, cheque was again presented on 19.4.1994 through the aforesaid bank but again he was intimated on 21.4.1994 that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Consequently, the complainant served notice upon the respondent on 29.4.1994 informing him regarding the dishonouring of the cheque. Failing to respond to the notice, the complainant preferred this complaint on 2.6.1994.

(3.) WE have the rival contentions and have scrutinized the record of the case.