Crl.Rev.No.379 of 2005 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 22.9.2010 Crl.Rev.No.379 of 2005 (O&M) Mohinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus M/s Chawla Fertilizers .......Respondent Crl.Rev.No.779 of 2005 (O&M) M/s Chawla Fertilizers ......Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: None for Mohinder Singh Mr.Harsh Garg, Advocate, for M/s Chawla Fertilizers **** SABINA, J. Vide this judgment CRR No.379 of 2005 and CRR No. 779 of 2005 will be disposed of as these have been arisen out of the same judgment. Petitioner Mohinder Singh was convicted for an offence under Crl.Rev.No.379 of 2005 (O&M) 2 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short- “ the Act”) vide judgment dated 5.2.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kathal. Vide order of the even date, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.4,500/- . Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 4.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (I), Kaithal. Hence, the revision petition by petitioner Mohinder Singh. On the other hand, complainant M/s Chawla Fertilizers has filed the revision petition for enhancement of sentence. None has appeared on behalf of petitioner Mohinder Singh. I have gone through the record of the case carefully with the able assistance of learned counsel for complainant M/s Chawla Fertilizers and am of the opinion that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed. The present case relates to cheque bouncing. The case of the complainant is that two cheques dated 10.9.1999 and 15.9.1999 in the sum of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively were issued by Mohinder Singh as proprietor for Mittal Traders. However, when the said cheques were presented for encashment, these were returned back by the bank with the report “Account closed”. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice to the Crl.Rev.No.379 of 2005 (O&M) 3 accused but the same was returned back with the report “refused”. Then left with no option, the complainant filed the complaint. The complainant, in order to prove his case, appeared in the witness box and examined the officials of the bank. A perusal of the cheques in question reveals that these are duly signed by Mohinder Singh for Mittal Traders in favour of M/s Chawla Fertilizers. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly ordered the conviction of petitioner Mohinder Singh under Section 138 of the Act as the complainant had been successful in proving its case. The reasons given by the courts below, while ordering the conviction of petitioner Mohinder Singh under Section 138 of the Act, are sound reasons. The trial Court has sentenced petitioner Mohinder Singh to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.4,500/-. A perusal of the order of sentence passed by the trial Court reveals that the fine has already been deposited by petitioner Mohinder Singh. The order of sentence was upheld by the Appellate Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order of sentence does not call for any interference. Consequently, both the revision petitions are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 22, 2010 anita