M/S.Excellent Hoisery Products vs Sh. Surender Bothra
2008 Latest Caselaw 1166 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+          CRL.M.C.No.2371/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.8862/2008

%                 Date of decision: 28.07.2008


M/s.Excellent Hoisery Products                ....... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr.Dilpreet Singh, Advocate.


                                Versus

Sh. Surender Bothra                             ......... Respondent
                        Through : Nemo.


CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

      1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may            YES
            be allowed to see the judgment?
      2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?           NO
      3.    Whether the judgment should be reported          NO
            in the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has impugned the order dated 1st February, 2008

of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision petition of the

petitioner against the order dated 31st August, 2007 of the trial Court

dismissing the application of the petition under Section 219 of the

Criminal Procedure Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that six cheques

which are the subject matter of the complaint are separate transactions

and, therefore, a single complaint in respect of the said six cheques

could not be filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

respondent in his examination has admitted that out of the six cheques,

four cheques are for the amount of the bills and two cheques are not for

the amount of the bills and this aspect has not been considered by the

courts below and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Reliance had been placed by the revisional court on 27(1) DCR

192, a judgment of Madras High Court holding that even though

different cheques are given on different dates, the presentation of all

cheques form the same transaction and if the demand is made by a

single lawyer's notice and not several demands for the payment of

dishonoured cheques, then the accused can be charged and tried at one

trial for several such offences.

The respondent's contention is that six cheques were issued by

the petitioner in order to discharge his outstanding balance and these

six cheques are not bills wise. It is also contended that the material

had been supplied to the petitioner on credit basis and a running

account is maintained in the course of the business in respect of the

material supplied to the petitioner.

It is not disputed that the trial has not concluded and only on the

basis of this deposition that the amounts of four cheques correspond to

the amounts of the bills it cannot be inferred that there was no current

account between the parties. Whether there was a current account of

not, earlier transactions between the parties can also be considered and

the inference as has been sought to be drawn by the petitioner cannot

be drawn in the facts and circumstances to hold that there was no

current account between the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any

manifest or apparent error in the order of the Revisional court dated 1st

February, 2008 and the order dated 31st August, 2007 of the MM so as

to entail interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The petition is without any merit, in the facts and circumstances,

and it is therefore dismissed.

July 28, 2008                                     ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'