Crl. Rev. No. 3049 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 3049 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 22, 2010 Nawal Kishore …..Petitioner Vs. M.S. Multani …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) It is contended that the petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court in a case where the account of petitioner did not exist when the cheque issued by him was presented for clearance. The said fact is apparent from the memo of Syndicate Bank Ex.C2, copy of which has been placed on record as annexure P-2. Crl. Rev. No. 3049 of 2010 [2] Counsel for the petitioner submits that offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be made out if the account had been closed after the issuance of the cheque. In the present case, the date of issuance of cheque is August 23, 2005 whereas the account of the petitioner had been closed prior to August 23, 2005. For the legal proposition, reliance had been placed on Urban Coop. Credit Society, Borsad Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2004 (1) RCR (Crl.) 63 and Deepa Finance Corporation Vs. A.K. Mohammed, 2001 (4) RCR (Crl.) 206. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the said proposition of law, the summoning of Bank Manager of Syndicate Bank, Jalandhar, is necessary, as it will enable the Court to arrive at a just conclusion regarding the commission of offence. A perusal of the order dated October 11, 2010 passed by the Lower Appellate Court indicates that the respondent has admitted the fact that account of the petitioner was closed/ did not exist at the time of presentation of cheque. I have gone through the copy of the reply filed by the respondent to the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (should be under Section 391 Cr.P.C.). This petition is disposed of with an observation that it will be open to the petitioner to take the benefit of the admitted fact at the time of final arguments of the appeal that the account of petitioner/ accused was closed/ did not exist at the time of presentation of the cheque, taking the advantage of the judgments cited before this Court. Crl. Rev. No. 3049 of 2010 [3] Order dasti on payment of usual charges. November 22, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE