Mahavir S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Crl. Misc. No. 39052 of 2013 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is disposed of. CRM-A-708-MA of 2013
(2.) Sameer Nagpal, appellant here-in, had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') against the respondent on the allegations that:-. "the accused had friendly relations with the complainant and the accused asked the complainant to lend a friendly loan of INR 5,00,000/- to him as the accused was in need of the same for domestic purposes. The accused undertook to repay the said ,amount after some time. The complainant believing the accused advanced the loan of INR 5,00,000/- to the accused during the month of December 2009 and thereafter the accused did not return the said amount as agreed. The complainant visited accused several times and requested him to return the said loan amount, but the accused delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 030882 dated 25.01.2010 from his account account No. 304010100014678 of UTI Bank Ltd., situated at 1- 2, Caliber Market, Rajpura, District Patiala, in favour of the complainant. At the time of issuing the cheque, the accused assured the complainant the said cheque will be honoured as and when the same will be presented in the bank for encasement. On 27.01.2010, the complainant presented the cheque in his account No.16221 (Present A/c No.1395695969) with his bank i.e. Central Bank of India, Rajpura Town, Gurudwara Road, Rajpura for clearance. The said cheque was returned back by the bankers of the accused vide memo dated 28.01.2010 with the remarks "Insufficient Funds" and the same was returned back to the complainant. The complainant approached the accused and requested the accused to pay the amount in cash as the cheque issued by the accused has been dishonoured. Then the accused assured the complainant that ,the cheque may be presented again and this time the cheque shall be honoured. On the asking of the accused, on 20.02.2010, the complainant again presented the cheque with his bank i.e Central Bank of India, Rajpura Town, Gurudwara Road, Rajpura for clearance. The said cheque was returned back by the bankers of the accused vide memo dated 22.02.2010 with the remarks "Insufficient Funds" and the same was returned back to the complainant. The complainant again approached the accused and requested the accused to pay the amount in cash as the cheque issued by the accused has been dishonoured. Then the accused assured the complainant that the cheque shall be honoured this time. On 19.04.2010, the complainant again presented the cheque with his bank i.e. Central Bank of India, Rajpura Town, Gurudwara Road, Rajpura for clearance. The said cheque was again returned back by the bankers of the accused vide memo dated 20.04.2010 with the remarks "Insufficient Funds" and the same was returned back to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant asked the accused verbally to pay the amount of cheque but the accused flatly refused to do so. The complainant got served a Regd. Legal notice dated 30.04.2010 upon the accused through registered AD requesting him to pay back the loan amount within the stipulated period. But the ,accused intentionally did not receive the said legal notice, which was received back by the counsel of complainant as unclaimed. The accused failed to make the payment of legally enforceable debt inspite of the legal notice given to him, which was intentionally not claimed by him."
(3.) After pre-summoning evidence, respondent was served a notice of accusation, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Complainant examined material witnesses and respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No evidence in defence was led by the respondent.;