2022 (3) TMI 979

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Stores is a partnership concern being represented by one of its partner, namely, Hira Lal Gupta. He was authorized by other partner to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter described as N.I. Act for short) against the respondent No. 2, Proprietress of M/s. Sangeeta Construction. The case of the complainant is that M/s. Hindustan Sanitary Stores supplied some goods and materials to the respondent No. 2 in course of their business transaction. In order to discharge her lawful debt and liability, the respondent No. 2 issued three cheques, all dated 1st February, 2009 amounting to Rs. 1,45,781/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively, total being Rs. 3,45,781/-. The said cheques were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent No. 2 issued the cheques in question as a security deposit. Secondly, the complainant failed to prove that respondent No. 2 had a subsisting debt or liability with the complainant, partnership firm. On perusal of the lower Court record it is found that the complainant produced the challans and invoices issued in the name of M/s. Sangeeta Construction which were marked as exhibit-2 collectively. On perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant who deposed during trial as P.W. 1. It is found that no suggestion was even put to the P.W. 1 to the effect that the cheques in question were issued by the respondent No. 2 as security deposit. On the contrary, it is specifically asked on behalf of the defence to P.W. 1 through his c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the basis of affirmative evidence adduced by the complainant on affidavit under Section 145 of the N.I. Act. During cross-examination the authenticity of exhibit-2 collectively was not even challenged by the respondent. The learned Magistrate also did not consider the legality, validity, sufficiency and service of demand notice issued by the complainant before the filing of the case. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the basic tenets of control of cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate should undergo a training in the State Judicial Academy on the "control of cases under Negotiable Instruments A....