IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41377 of 2008 BAIDYANATH SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 17.12.2008 Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. The petitioner had issued a cheque of the value stated in the complaint petition as price of the cement in which he wanted dealing in favour of the Sales Promoter, i.e., the complainant. The cheque was presented for encashment and it bounced because the account had already been closed. It was a post dated cheque and it was to be drawn from the account of the petitioner and the present petitioner does not deny these facts. The petitioner was served with a notice through an advocate and that also appears not denied. The complaint thereafter filed a complaint petition alleging that the petitioner knowingly and intentionally issued the cheque so as to playing deception upon the complainant and thereby getting the delivery of cement supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail was dismissed by me in Miscellaneous petition no.46896 of 2007 noticing the above fact as also the contention. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner today has attempted to impress upon me that the complainant might have changed the date of the cheque by inserting a date on it, of his choice and, as such, could have presented the cheque for encashment by which date the petitioner could have closed his - 2 - account. It was contended that it was within the terms of agreement of business and, as such, it could not be an offence either of dishonour or of defrauding the complainant and thereby to get delivery of property. While being taken through the annexures which are the counterfoils of various cheques including one, which is in question, I could find that there is no date put on many of the annexures appearing as Annexure-4 including the one which was the counterfoil of the main cheque. The contention was of insertion of a new date and only on that count, the counterfoil did not bear any date. The Court does not find force in such contention inasmuch as the counterfoil of a cheque may not be bearing any date which could be presented by a person or which could be issued whether he put down the date and other necessary details of the main cheque which he issued to any person or any Corporate body could be known to him alone. Merely because a person does not put any date or other necessary details of a cheque in its counterfoil, that may not and could not deny the substantial document which could be issued. But the admitted fact is that the petitioner had issued a cheque and that bounced. Admittedly, the petitioner had approached for dealership and had received the cement and payment of price through the cheque was a hoax, considering which the prayer is dismissed. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )