Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2006(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2006(O&M) Date of decision: 6.10.2010 Bhushan Narula ......Petitioner Versus Gian Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Puneet Singla, Advocate,for Mr.S.S.Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.J.J.Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short- “the Act”) vide judgment dated 10.11.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. Vide order of the even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2006(O&M) 2 Rs.10,000/-under Section 138 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.3.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Hence, the present petition. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, are reproduced herein below:- “Accused took a friendly loan of Rs.1,50,000/- without interest from the complainant and agreed to return the same in August, 2001. In order to discharge his liability the accused issued two account payee cheques bearing No.039148 dated 10.8.2001 for Rs.One lac and No.039275 dated 30.8.2001 for Rs.50,000/-. The cheques were drawn on State Bank of India, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar. The aforesaid cheques were dishonoured when presented for encashment in the bank vide memos dated 10.11.2001 with the remarks “Not arranged for”. Thereafter the complainant issued registered notice dated 30.11.2001, calling upon the accused to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice but even then no payment was made to the complainant and hence, the complaint.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2006(O&M) 3 the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Complainant Ramjit Singh had filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant and had agreed to return the same in the month of August 2001. The petitioner, in order to discharge the said liability, issued two cheques i.e. one dated 10.8.2001 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and another cheque dated 30.8.2001 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, the same were dishonoured with the report “Not arranged for”. Despite service of notice, the petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount in question to the complainant and hence, left with no other alternative, the complainant filed the complaint in question. Learned trial Court, in para 11 of the impugned judgment, has held as under:- “The accused has not disputed his signatures on the cheques in question. The version put forward by the accused is that he had given the cheques as a matter of security to the son of the complainant who was running the business of manufacturing of coolers etc. and the son of the complainant had asked the accused to run a shop to sell the material manufactured by him. Had the defence version Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2006(O&M) 4 been correct, the cheques would have been issued by the accused only after purchasing the goods/material from the son of the complainant. However, in this regard, the accused has not led any evidence that he had purchased some material from the son of the complainant. No bill or any other document regarding any transaction between the accused and the son of the complainant has been placed on the file. This circumstance negates the defence version of the accused and the same seems to be nothing but an after thought. Moreover, in his cross-examination, the accused has stated that he never filed any complaint against the son of complainant for non-returning the cheques which were issued by him.” The plea taken by the petitioner was that the cheques in question had been issued by way of security. However, the petitioner failed to establish the said plea. Learned Appellate Court, in para 10 of the impugned judgment, has held as under:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the evidence on the file, I am of the view that there is no merit in this appeal and as such same deserves dismissal. The Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2006(O&M) 5 appellant has categorically admitted the issuance of cheques in question which according to him were given as security to the son of the complainant for the material to be supplied by him, which was to be sold by the appellant in his show room. But as observed by the learned trial court accused- appellant has not lead any evidence to prove on which date and for what amount he had purchased the material from the son of the complainant. No such bill or document regarding the purchase of the material from the son of the respondent- complainant, has been placed on the file. No complaint has been filed by the appellant till date against the son of the complainant for non-returning of the cheques in question. Moreover, as per case of the appellant himself, not only he but his two relatives Kamal Dev and Rajesh Kumar have also issued similar cheques to the respondent- complainant. Admittedly the complaint was filed against Rajesh Kuamr and during the pendency of that complaint Rajesh Kumar paid the cheque amount to the complainant and thereafter the said complaint was got dismissed as withdrawn. Similarly complaint filed against kamal Dev has Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2006(O&M) 6 already been allowed by the learned lower court and he has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and today itself this court has dismissed the appeal filed by above said Kamal Dev. Had no amount been received by the relatives of appellant then Rakesh Kumar had not paid any amount to the respondent nor Kamal Dev would have been sentenced to imprisonment. Moreover, zimni order dated 17.1.2006 shows that even the present appellant was ready to pay the cheque amount to the respondent. Had no amount been received by the appellant, then he would not have offered to pay the cheque amount to the respondent-complainant. These facts also go to prove the liability of the appellant for the discharge of which he issued cheques in question. Simply because no interest was chargeable or no date has been given us to when the loan was given to the appellant, it cannot be said that no loan was granted to the appellant by the respondent.” The trial Court as well as the appellate Court, after Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2006(O&M) 7 appreciating the evidence led on record, have given sound reasons while passing the impugned judgments. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE October 06, 2010 anita