Crl.Rev.No.2095/2010. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.2095/2010. Date of decision: 23.9.2010. Pankaj Nagpal @ Happy Papadwala ....................Petitioner v. Rajesh .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present:- Mr.Gorakh Nath,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.PS Jammu,Advocate for the respondent. Jaswant Singh.J. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.7.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Sirsa, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by learned JMIC, Sirsa holding petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay the amount of dishonoured cheque as compensation to the complainant; was upheld. Hence the present revision petition. Heard. Before adverting to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, facts of the present case may be noticed Crl.Rev.No.2095/2010. 2 briefly. Respondent complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner with the allegations that he had cordial relations with accused-petitioner and due to that reason petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac from him for domestic purpose. At that time petitioner is alleged to have given cheque no.070265 amounting to Rs. 1 lac, drawn on Central Bank of India, to the complainant-respondent with the assurance that on presentation the complainant will be able to get the amount. However, on presentation the said cheque was returned unpaid with the remarks “Funds insufficient”. After complying with the statutory requirements the respondent filed the present complaint. Both sides led evidence. After hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed above and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),Sirsa vide impugned order dated 13.7.2010. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has argued that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant- respondent and as a security a blank signed cheque had been kept by the complainant. The loan was subsequently repaid, however, the blank cheque was not returned by the complainant-respondent. Learned counsel has also argued that complainant was running a karyana shop with very meager income and therefore, it was not Crl.Rev.No.2095/2010. 3 possible for him to advance a loan of Rs.1 lac to the petitioner. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent has submitted that the learned appellate court on appraisal of the statement of complainant-PW1 has arrived at a view that it is quite possible for the person like complainant to earn and maintain an amount of Rs. 1 lac by running a karyana shop from the year 1992 upto May 2006 and such finding cannot be said to be perverse. He has further argued that the accused-petitioner has not been able to prove by bringing any cogent evidence that a blank signed cheque was kept as a security by the complainant while advancing a sum of Rs.35,000/- as loan to the petitioner in the year 2004, and further no evidence has been led that while repayment of the said amount the cheque was not returned and subsequently mis-utilised by the complainant by filling in the amount in dispute. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the pleas raised on behalf of petitioner are not sustainable and devoid of merit. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record found that all the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were made out. Except for the bald assertions no evidence worth credence was led by the petitioner to prove that the cheque in question was submitted as a security which was subsequently mis-utilised by the respondent. On appraisal the learned appellate Court has rightly held that the Court has to see the legal requirement of the offence Crl.Rev.No.2095/2010. 4 punishable under Section 138, which stand proved to the hilt by the complainant-respondent. Further, in my opinion, the finding recorded by the learned appellate Court,on the basis of statement of complainant-respondent/PW1, that he has sufficient source of income to advance the loan of Rs. 1 lac, cannot be termed to be perverse, as it is admitted case of the accused-petitioner himself that complainant is running a Karyana shop. Still further, the petitioner, before the courts below as well as before this Court has not been able to show that the blank signed cheque was kept by way of security. It is not believable that at the time of alleged repayment of Rs.35,000/- the petitioner did not ask for return of the cheque in question or on refusal by the complainant, petitioner chose to take no action against the respondent. After careful examination of the impugned judgments, I find no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Court below, which may warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. 23.9.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge