Crl. Revision No. 579 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 579 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 9, 2011 Surinder Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner-Surinder Kumar has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 27.9.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Fatehabad under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short ‘the Act’) and order dated 29.9.2008 by virtue of which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for an offence under Section 138 of the Act as well as the judgment dated 9.2.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge II, Fatehabad confirming the findings of the learned trial Court. Crl. Revision No. 579 of 2011 (O&M) 2 The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of this petition is that complainant had filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the appellant/accused by stating that the accused had opened a current and mutual account in the firm of the complainant would take money from him as per his necessity. The accused would sell his jeans to the complainant’s firm. An amount of ` 92,000/- was due and outstanding against the accused for the last 2/3 years. On 19.4.2007, the accused again borrowed a sum of ` 2,50,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of purchasing a tractor and promised that after harvesting the wheat crop, he will pay the outstanding amount to the complainant firm within 2/3 months. On the assurance, the complainant gave a sum of ` 2,50,000/- to the accused on 19.4.2007. The accused in discharge of his liability issued a cheque in favour of the complainant’s firm bearing no. 037352 dated 20.7.2007 drawn on his account no.65007212132 maintained by him with State Bank of Patiala Branch, Fatehabad. When the cheque was presented for encashment with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Fatehabad on 20.7.2007, the same was returned with remarks that the funds were insufficient. The complainant then sent a legal notice dated 31.7.2007 calling upon the accused to pay the amount due on the said cheque with interest within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice. The complainant in order to prove his case examined Inderjit as P.W.1, Jagdish Nagpal as P.W.2, Bharat Bhushan as P.W.3 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the petitioner examined Jagdish Nagpal as D.W.1 in his defence. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the complainant has not placed on record income tax reports or any accounts of Crl. Revision No. 579 of 2011 (O&M) 3 his business to prove that the present petitioner borrowed any money to him or that the cheque in question had been issued by the petitioner on 20.7.2007 to the complainant in order to pay the amount allegedly due to the complainant. I have carefully considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he had issued a cheque for ` 3,00,000/- to the complainant and had also admitted his signatures on the said cheque. P.W.1 Inderjit Singh while appearing in the witness box had categorically deposed that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of ` 2,50,000/- from him for purchasing a tractor and had undertaken to repay the said amount within 2-3 months, but he failed to repay the said amount, as such a notice was issued to him which was duly served upon the petitioner. Jagdish Nagpal P.W.2 clerk of State Bank of Patiala on the basis of the record had deposed that a cheque amounting to ` 3,00,000/- was presented which was dishonoured. As noticed above, the petitioner has not denied his signatures on cheque Ex.C-5. It is also admitted case of the petitioner that a notice was served upon him and he had replied the said notice. It is well settled principle of law that once the signatures on the cheque are admitted by the petitioner-accused, a presumption as envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the said cheque was made or drawn for consideration. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption as required under Section 118 of the Act. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any manifest error of law or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. The learned trial Court as well as the learned lower Appellate Court Crl. Revision No. 579 of 2011 (O&M) 4 have properly appreciated the evidence led by both the parties and I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge March 9, 2011 Anand