Crl. Revision No. 1064 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1064 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 20, 2010 Gurcharan Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr. M.S. Dhami, Advocate, for respondent No.2. SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act') by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur vide judgment dated 19.9.2006. Vide order of the even date the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under the Act. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr vide judgment dated 12.8.2008. Hence, the present revision. The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur in para 1 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- Crl. Revision No. 1064 of 2010 (O&M) 2 “Complainant Avtar Singh has brought this complaint against accused Gurcharan Singh, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, with allegations that accused was to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to complainant, being his liability towards complainant and to discharge the same, accused issued a cheque bearing no.535623` dated 15.11.2005 for Rs.2,00,000/- from his account no.6822, drawn on The Nawanshahr Central Coop Bank, Branch Balachaur, in name of complainant and handed over to him. Complainant is having his account with Shivalik Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch Bachauri, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr. For recalling of amount of aforesaid cheque, complainant presented said cheque to bank of accused through his bank. Vide memo dated 6.12.205, aforesaid bank of accused returned the said cheque without encashing the same due to reason of “insufficient funds” in account of accused and Shivalik Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch Bachauri, returned the said cheque to complainant vide memo dated 12.12.2005. After receiving the last intimation regarding the bouncing/returning the aforesaid cheque unpaid, complainant issued a notice dated 17.12.2005 to accused by registered post, demanding payment in question within 15 days from receipt of aforesaid notice. Accused did not receive the said notice intentionally and did not make any payment even after the said notice. Hence, this complaint.” Crl. Revision No. 1064 of 2010 (O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. This is yet again a cheque bouncing case. In order to prove his case complainant appeared in the witness box as CW-1. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner was to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to him qua an existing liability and had issued the cheque in question qua the same. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned back with the report “Insufficient Funds”. The petitioner took up the plea that the cheque in question had not been issued for a legal liability. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment has held as under :- “12. From the above evidence led by the complainant, it is manifestly established on record that the accused did incur a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant and in order to discharge his said legal liability the accused issued cheque (Ex.C-1) which was dishonoured by the bankers of the accused vide memo (Ex. C-2) with remarks Insufficient Funds and after the dishonouring of the cheque in question, the complainant served legal notice (Ex.C-4) within a period of one month falling upon the accused to make payment within 15 days which the accused failed. 13. There is nothing on record to rebut the said evidence led by the complainant which appeals to be convincing and trustworthy and same has been rightly relied upon by the learned trial court. As such, the accused has been rightly convicted under Section 138 of the Crl. Revision No. 1064 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Negotiable Instruments Act. The sentence imposed upon the accused-appellant vide the impugned judgment dated 19.9.2006 is also appropriate. The is no justification to interfere with the same. Thus, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 19.9.2006 passed by the learned trial court and consequently the same is sustained. Resultantly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Trial Court's record alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith with a direction to ensure the execution of sentence of imprisonment inflicted upon the accused- appellant vide the judgment dated 19.9.2006 after securing the presence of the accused. File of this court be consigned to Record Room.” Both the Courts' below have gone through the evidence led by the complainant while ordering the conviction of the petitioner under the Act. The reasons given by the Courts' below are sound reasons and call for no interference. A perusal of the record of the trial Court reveals that the petitioner had absented on 22.11.2007 and his appeal was dismissed in his absence. Thereafter, the petitioner surrendered himself. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, no ground for reduction of the sentence is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) September 20, 2010 JUDGE Anand