Aditya Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 9.2.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandausi (Moradabad) in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2008 Piush Kumar Garg v. State and others by which the appeal has been dismissed and the conviction order dated 20.9.2008 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi has been affirmed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that notice was not duly served upon the revisionist, therefore the complaint could not have been filed by opposite party No. 2. It has also been submitted that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any legally recoverable debt, therefore the complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act could not have been filed . It has also been submitted that it has also not been proved that notice was sent on correct address. No loss has been proved by opposite party No. 2, therefore no compensation could be awarded to him. It has also been submitted that learned Magistrate has exceeded in his jurisdiction by awarding compensation.
(3.) Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has submitted that opposite party No. 2 had given a loan of INR 65, 000/- to revisionist and in lieu of payment, the revisionist had issued the alleged cheque with the understanding that whenever it shall be produced before the Bank, the payment shall be made. The cheque was produced before the Bank for payment which was dishonoured with the remark of insufficient funds. Upon dishonour of the cheque, the complainant had informed the accused on telephone but the complainant had not paid any heed. The opposite party No. 2 had sent a notice on 11.8.2005 by registered post which was returned back in connivance with the post man. Thereafter the complaiant was filed. Learned courts below have considered the material on record and have rightly convicted the revisionist.;