S.D.ANAND,J - (1.) THE petitioner/complainant an authorised stockiest of M/s Standard Combines Private Limited for Standard Tractors, had launched a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondents no. 1 and 3/accused who are its authorised dealer for the sale of standard tractors. Respondent no. 2 is the sole proprietor of firm No. 1 while respondent no. 4 is the sole proprietor of respondent no. 3 concern.
(2.) RESPONDENTS no. 3 and 4 obtained a tractor from the petitioner/complainant on credit basis. A sum of Rs. 365750/- was outstanding against them as on 10.1.2006. Respondents No. 1 and 3 issued a cheque of that amount to the petitioner/complainant on 17.4.2006. It was presented but it bounced on account of insufficiency of funds. On 21.4.2006, a representative of respondent no. 1/accused visited the premises of the complainant at Hisar and handed over a cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Karnal in favour of petitioner/complainant. The cheque bore the signature of respondent no. 2/accused. Along with it, respondents no. 3 and 4 also handed over a letter conceding that cheque was being issued in discharge of an outstanding liability. However, the cheque again bounced on 24.4.2006, with an endorsement by the banker that the amount of cheque exceeded the arrangement made by the respondents/accused with their bank. Learned Trial Magistrate negatived petitioner's presentation by observing that it was on record that respondents no. 3 and 4/accused had already issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner/complainant for the amount of Rs. 365750/- which was dishonoured and for which an independent complaint was pending vide Ex. D1. Learned Trial court further held that "If the cheque was issued by accused No. 1 and 2 in view of letter Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, the complainant should not have moved the other complaint for an amount of Rs. 365750/- for not clearance. The amount is one i.e. Rs. 365750/-. Two complaints have been filed by the complainant, the present one and Ex.D1. Rs. 250000/- had to be adjusted in Rs. 365750/-. There was no direct liability to pay this amount of Rs. 250000/- to complainant by accused No. 1 and 2. Only by an agreement which is accepted as orally by PW1 in his cross examination the arrangement was made that the accused No. 1 and 2 will pay Rs. 250000/- directly to complainant, which was pending against them in favour of accused No. 3 and 4 and the complainant has already filed direct complaint against accused No. 3 and 4 for bouncing of cheque for an amount of Rs. 365750/-. That complaint is still pending, so, for an amount, two complaints cannot go simultaneously. It is also admission of PW1 in the cross examination that he had to take an amount of Rs. 250000/- from June, 2000 from M/s Mehar Automobiles and this amount had to be received as a payment of the tractor, which was given to M/s Malik Tractors and Combines. So, again there was no direct outstanding liability in favour of accused No. 1 and 2, because the money had to be paid actually by accused No. 3 and 4 against which the present complaint has already been dismissed and a separate complaint is pending filed by the complaint for the total amount of Rs. 365750/-."
(3.) I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtaining on the file and there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. Petition dismissed.;