Criminal Revision No.1740 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1740 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 24, 2009 M.K.Mandal ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharath Sarup,Assistant Advocate General, Haryana ** Sabina, J. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the last three dates. Today, also nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In the present case, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`the Act' for short) was filed by the complainant on the ground that the petitioner had issued cheques bearing No.301565 and 304782 amounting to Rs.5000/- each to the complainant. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, the same bounced with the report “funds insufficient”. Petitioner assured the complainant that in case the cheques were again presented for encashment, the same would be honoured as there were sufficient funds in its account. However, when the said cheques were again presented for encashment, they were again dishonoured with the remarks “insufficient funds” as well as “payment Criminal Revision No.1740 of 2008 2 stopped by the drawer.” Thereafter, the complainant served a notice on the petitioner on 15.3.1999. Despite that, the payment was not made to the complainant. Hence, the complaint in question was filed. Complainant, in order to prove its case, led its evidence. Complainant examined two witnesses and led the relevant documentary evidence. The cheques in question were signed by the petitioner. The necessary ingredients for constitution of offence under Section 138 of the Act are that a cheque must have been drawn and when the same was presented for encashment it dishonoured and despite notice, payment is not made by the person who had issued the cheque. Since in the present case, the complainant had been successful in proving its case and had established the ingredients required for constitution of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. No interference is called for. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge April 24, 2009 arya