Crl. Revision No.1925 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1925 of 2002 Date of decision : 10.05.2010 Rajinder Kumar and another .... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Manvinder S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. It is stated that petitioner had borrowed Rs.2,05,000/- from the complainant and for payment of the loan amount, he had issued two cheques bearing Nos.063166 and 063170 for a sum of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively. Both the cheques bounced due to insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. For non encashment of cheque of Rs.45,000/- a separate complaint was filed. The present case pertains to cheque which was issued for Rs.20,000/-. Notice of accusation, issued on 10.09.2001, stated that on 14.7.2000 petitioner No.1 being proprietor of M/s Vishnu Electric Flour Mills, Ferozepur Cantt. issued a cheque on behalf of the mill bearing No.063170 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the complainant. Accused appeared, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Complainant examined his witnesses in support of his case. Crl. Revision No.1925 of 2002 -2- Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of the trial, Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur held the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month, vide order dated 14.3.2002. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court, finding no merit, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.9.2002. Sh. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate appearing for the petitioners has stated that the complainant had filed a suit for recovery regarding the amount of cheques also. The suit was decreed. Therefore, petitioner cannot be convicted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Secondly, it is submitted that since the cheques were issued in pursuance of loan given by the complainant, therefore, these cheques are to be construed payment towards security and if it is so held, petitioner has committed no offence. These two arguments do not find favour with me. Civil and Criminal proceedings can continue simultaneously. Civil proceedings in the present case are for the recovery of the amount which complainant had advanced to the accused. Dishonour of a cheque entails the petitioner with penal consequences. Therefore, the fact that civil suit was decreed will not absolve the petitioner of his penal liability. So far as second argument is concerned, counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to why cheques cannot be treated Crl. Revision No.1925 of 2002 -3- as instalments towards the payment of the loan. Even otherwise also, this question of fact has been determined by both the Courts below. No patent illegality or irregularity is discernible in the judgment of both the Courts below. However, taking into consideration the fact that the cheques were issued in the year 2000 and for the last about 10 years the petitioner has been suffering mental pain and agony of the protracted trial, sentence of 6 months RI is reduced to 4 months RI. The present revision petition is disposed of. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 10-05-2010 JUDGE manju