H.R.PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Sec tion 482 Cr.P.C, the accused-petitioner has challenged the order dated 13-2-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur (for short, "the Revisional Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 27/2006, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18-5-2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Padampur (for short, "the Trial Court" hereinafter) was dismissed.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below. It appears from the complaint filed by the respondent that the name of the Rajasthan Bank Ltd. has been mentioned, whereas the actual bank is Sri Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank, Padampur Branch. However, subsequently during the trial of the case, an application was submitted mentioning therein that the name of the bank has not been correctly mentioned in the complaint and, therefore the name of Sri Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank was sought to be substituted in place of the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. That application was allowed. On revision, the Revisional Court did not interfere with the order of the Trial Court.
(3.) IN my view, the cheque was issued by the petitioner and on presentation before the bank, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient fund to the petitioner's account maintained with the Sri Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Padampur Branch and on receipt of such information, a notice demanding the cheque amount was given to the petitioner and on having failed to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period of notice. Thus, the requirement of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act, 1881") hereinafter) has been fulfilled and substituting/incorporating the name of Bank through which the cheque was dishonoured, cannot change the foundation of the case/complaint. Therefore, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.;