Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 629 (RAJ)

Ramesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2018-02-22

SABINA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Petitioner had faced trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') on a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 with regard to dishonour of cheque dated 17.07.1999 in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 2. Case of the complainant in brief is that the accused had taken loan from the complainant in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide cheque dated 25.09.1998. For repayment of loan, cheque in question had been issued by Kailash Chandra on behalf of the firm Banshidhar Sanehilal. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured by the bank as the payment had been stopped by drawer. Despite issuance of notice, petitioner had failed to pay the cheque amount in question to the complainant. Hence, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed against the accused. During trial, complainant led his evidence in support of his case. 3. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 22.11.2002 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. The other co-accused of the petitioner were absconders. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate court vide order dated 16.07.2003. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 5. A perusal of the cheque Exhibit-P-1 reveals that the same is signed by partner Kailash Chandra for the firm Banshidhar Sanehilal. Admittedly, petitioner is also a partner of the said firm. Being a partner of the firm, petitioner was also liable to be prosecuted on account of dishonour of the cheque in question. The cheque had not been issued by Kailash Chandra in his personal capacity but as a partner of the Firm. 6. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence led on record had thus, rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. 7. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.