RAJ KUMAR Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING AND CONSUMERS FEDERATION LTD, SHIMLA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision is directed against the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, H.P, on 11.8.2015 in Cr. Appeal No. 03-S/10 of 2012, whereby, the latter affirmed the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasuali, Court No.II, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Complaint No. 99/3 of 2007/02. However, it reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years to nine months, yet the sentence with respect to imposition of fine, by the learned trial Court was affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Jude.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2001- 02, the petitioner/accused approached the respondents for supplying liquor on credit basis to him. On the basis of request so made, the respondents supplied liquor to the application of the value of Rs.21,65,072/- only. To discharge the aforesaid liability, the appellant issued cheque dated 21st September, 2002 in a sum of Rs.21,65,072/- drawn against his account maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Branch Solan, District Solan, H.P. in favour of the complainant. The complainant(s) presented the aforementioned cheque with their banker namely Punjab National Bank, Parwanoo, within the period of its validity for collection of amount. However, the banker of the appellant vide its memo dated 26.9.2002, returned the cheque to their banker and thereby it was informed that due to insufficient funds in the account of the appellant, the cheque could not be honoured. The banker vide its memo dated 1.10.2002 returned the cheque as well as the aforementioned memo and thereby he was apprised of the aforementioned factual position. On receipt of the aforementioned information, the complainant(s) served upon the accused/petitioner a legal notice dated 10.10.2002, sent by way of registered letters and under postal certificate and thereby he was apprised of the factum of dishonouring of the cheque by his banker and he was further called upon to make the cheque payment within the stipulated period. The registered letter sent on his home address was returned with remarks that appellant was out of station, whereas, notice sent on the address of Solan, was returned with remarks that the appellant had left the aforementioned address without his further address of contact. However, the notice sent vide UPC did not receive back and as such was presumed to have been served upon him in due course of time. In view of the nature of the reports made, the service was deemed to have been effected upon him. The accused/petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period. Hence the complaint.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), put notice of accusation to him, for his committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.