JUDGMENT :

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Lukesh Kumar is present.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.-2 Mr. Sandip Kumar Burnwal is also present.

3. This criminal revision petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

“That the instant Criminal Revision Application is directed against the Judgment dated 02.08.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 279/2010 by Sri Sachindra Kumar Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Dhanbad whereby and where under the Judgment and Order of sentence dated 30.07.2009 passed in C.P. Case No. 1029/2007 and T.R. No. 829/2009 by Sri Debasis Mohapatra, Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner has been directed to undergo for the Simple Imprisonment of 6 (six) months for offence U/S 138 N.I. Act and also directed to pay a sum of Rupees one lakh and thirty three thousands and nine hundred as compensation to the complainant, which is equivalent to both the cheque amounts was affirmed.”

Arguments of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that following are the undisputed list of dates in the present case: -

5. The main grounds of revision are as under: -

a) For that, the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that there is no relation between the complainant and petitioner as there was no agreement, no liability between the parties and hence, no cause of action arose to proceed with the present criminal case.

b) For that, the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the mandatory provision under the N.I. Act has not been complied with as it is admitted by the complainant that the notice issued by him after the cheque got bounced was never served to the petitioner, rather the same was returned to the complainant and only on this ground, the whole proceeding is vitiated.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the complaint petition itself, the agreement was entered into between one Deepak Saw and Smt. Shibrani Devi (wife of the complainant) and the cheque involved in the present case was issued by the petitioner on behalf of Deepak Saw in favour of the complainant. He further submits that so far as the petitioner and the complainant are concerned, there was no privity of contract calling for payment of any amount, nor there was any liability flowing from the petitioner in favour of the complainant and the agreement was also between two different persons, namely, Deepak Saw and Smt. Shibrani Devi who is the wife of the complainant. He submits that the amount, if any, was payable by Deepak Saw to Smt. Shibrani Devi and the cheque in the present case is said to have been issued by the petitioner on behalf of Deepak Saw in favour of the husband of Smt. Shibrani Devi and thus, neither the petitioner, nor the complainant were party to the agreement entered into between Deepak Saw and Smt. Shibrani Devi. He further submits that the complaint was premature and hence, it was not maintainable considering the time lines under the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner