G.G. BHATIA & OTHERS Vs. SUNIL KUMAR & ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2012-1-36
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on January 03,2012

G.G. Bhatia And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Sunil Kumar And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) BY way of this revision, the challenge is made to the order dated 12.4.2004, passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint No. 1705/2002, whereby the objections of the accused revisionists were rejected and the learned Magistrate directed to level the charge against them.
(2.) IT is pertinent to mention at the outset that this Court has given hearing to learned Counsel for the revisionists, but none turned up on behalf of the complainant/private respondent no. 1, so hearing was accorded to the learned Brief Holder for the State. The facts qua controversy are that on 17.2.1982, the revisionists, who are the traders settled at Bareilly, approached Sunil Kumar, Manager, Vigyan Chemical Industries, based at Dehradun, for supply of hydrated lime, and after entering into an agreement for supply of 7.5 metric ton of hydrated lime, the accused persons, in order to induce, gave a cheque of rupees four thousand, as advance, to the complainant Sunil Kumar on the same day i.e. on 17.2.1989 and promised to pay the remaining amount after the delivery of the ordered goods. Thereafter as per the agreement, 7.5 metric ton of hydrated lime, contained in 150 bags, was sent by the complaint to the accused revisionists on 20.2.1982 by truck no. URM -3647, and along with the said consignment, a bill no. 287 of Rs. 5962.50 was also sent. The lime was also received by the accused persons at Bareilly on 21.2.1982.
(3.) IN the meanwhile, the aforesaid cheque was presented by Sunil Kumar for encashment through his banker, but the same was dishonored on 27.2.1982 and returned unpaid to the complainant with the endorsement "referred to the drawer". So, Sunil Kumar sent a notice on 6.3.1982 to the accused persons, but in vain. So, he further sent repeated notices on 24.5.1983, 13.6.1983 & 14.7.1983. Those notices also could not yield any result. So, feeling constraint, he filed a complaint on 14.10.1983 against the accused revisionists for the offence of Section 420 IPC. Since the complainant regularly kept himself absent, therefore, this complaint was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun on 12.12.1989 with the following orders: Called out. Applicant is absent as usual. Accused present. No evidence produced. Accused are discharged u/s 245 CrPC. For want of evidence complaint is dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.