Crl. Revision No. 68 of 2002 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 68 of 2002 Date of Decision:May 12, 2009 Dayal Chhabra ---Petitioner versus Girdhar Gopal ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. R.K.Handa,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for respondent. *** SABINA, J. Respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him on 3.5.1995. The said loan amount was returnable in instalments of Rs. 2500/- per month. The loan amount was to be cleared in two years. A pronote and receipt were also executed at the time of advancement of loan. Petitioner had also issued four cheques of Rs. 25000/- each in favour of the respondent. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, the same have been received back with the report “insufficient funds”. Crl. Revision No. 68 of 2002 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that trial court had discharged the petitioner vide order dated 25.1.1999 while allowing the application filed by the petitioner for dropping the proceedings against him. The order of discharge amounted to acquittal and hence revision petition against the said order was not maintainable. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh had erred in allowing the revision filed by respondent against the order of discharge. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 469 and Bal Ram Suraj vs. Dev Raj Dhiman 1987 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 616. Admittedly Rs. 1,00,000/- were advanced by respondent and the same were to be repaid within two years. The terms and conditions settled between the parties at the time of advancement of loan as per the receipt Annexure A-1 are as under:- “ I, Dial Chand has received Rs. One lac (Rs. 1,00,000/-) from the Girdhar Gopal s/o Shri Madam Mohan as loan which I shall repay in installments Rs. 2500/- per month and shall pay minimum Rs. 50,000/- at the end of twelve months time. The total loan amount shall be cleared at the end of 24 months. The interest charged of this amount shall be @ 12% per annum. I have issued a promissory note against this amount and a cheque no. 0139513 has been issued against this amount. The instalment of Rs. 2500/- shall be payable on 18th every month. In case I fail to repay the amount every month they have full right and take any action against me. This is a mutual understanding between both the parties. Crl. Revision No. 68 of 2002 -3- Cheque No. 0139514 Rs. 25000-/ Cheque No. 0139515 Rs. 25000-/(issued against this amount) Cheque No. 0139516 Rs. 25000-/ Cheque No. 0149517 Rs. 25000-/ sd/- Witness 1.Sd/- xx Rajinder Kumar Dayal Chhabra 2.Sd/- Raj xx 3.5.95” A reading of Annexure A-1 reveals that the petitioner was to repay the loan in instalments of Rs. 2500/- per month and was required to pay minimum of Rs. 50,000/- by the end of 12 months time. The entire loan was to be cleared at the end of 24 months. Apparently four cheques of Rs. 25000/- were issued by the petitioner as security. The loan was advanced on 3.5.1995 whereas the cheques in question were presented for encashment on 23.9.1995 i.e. much before the expiry of the period fixed for repayment of loan amount. In these circumstances, learned trial court has rightly allowed the application filed by the petitioner seeking dropping of proceedings against him. Vide order dated 25.1.1999, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh discharged the petitioner. The order of discharge amounts to acquittal and against the said order revision petition is not maintainable. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh has erred in allowing the revision petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dated 4.9.2001 is set aside. (SABINA) JUDGE May 12, 2009 PARAMJIT