W yaw, m, Wm (W) wemw'éz \‘L WWW WWW§f®am $aifa‘uénaw CRIIVAINAL REVISIOE NO.208/2006 ‘u Mr. R.K. Shawna, Advocate fi Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advoccrfe ‘ Mr. NK. Meh'l'a, Panel Lawyer 3r the applicant :or' respondem‘ No.1 for *he respcnden'l' No.2/S1'a1'e ORAL ORDER (21 * August 2007) Per Dhirendrn Mishm, J; This revision is, direc‘f d uguinsf 'I'he Judgment of conviction and order of semence dafed 31: .2006 passed in Criminai Appeal No.51/O5 whereby learned 9+“ Addi-ri nal Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur- has dismissed +he appeal prefer ed by fhe applicanl against his convici‘ion and seni'en‘ce under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1991 (for shart ‘the Act') by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur' vide Judgment date 30.4.2005 whereby the trial court has mm. W 200 Applicaw Vijm Kumr Pandey, 5/0 Mohanlul Pandey, Revisioner aged 42 year's, R/o Kosfurba Nagqr, Aacused Jar? abha‘ra, Bilaspur- C6. Vs [Rapondenf 1. Smf. Suman Dubey, W/o Ram Mmohar ,Conplninani No.1 Dubzy, R/o Sorknnda, Tah. (S; Dis‘H'. ‘ Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Stare ofChhn'H'isgqr-h, j X1-HC—78 mm a 200 mm (W) mafgam ' f .r. &mm ~ ._$.E.j_: a that -2/ canvic’te‘d ‘Hwe applicun‘r and imposed a penalty of Rs.75,000!- and in defauH 0f 'H1e paymem‘ of pe y +0 undergo RI. for 3 mamhs. The grounds faker! by he applicun+ in The memo of revision are 'H1af ‘Hie ink used in 'H1e ‘ch que is different which shows Tho? #he ‘ciheque was undoi'ed oi +he +i e of issuance, as +he cheque was given by w .. +he‘accu5ed fowar'ds securif of loan and no-i for ironsac'rion of icon. under- +he Ac? has nof been proved. Husband of +he compiainanf as nof been examined as witness fhough his name was menfioned in fh iis-l- of wifnesses. Bofh The courfs beiow' offer appreciafing The documenfory and oroi evidence ovoilobie on rec‘ rd hove recorded fhe concurren‘l’ finding of focf fhof fhe cheque of E .P—1 was issued by fhe applicanf/accused in favour of compiainanf Sm Suman Dubey during +he course of his business fowards fhe discha e of deb? and The some was presenTed before The bank of The oppii‘ onT i.e. SToTe Bonk of Indore, Sorkanda Branch, Biiaspur, which reTurned wiThouT poymenT wiTh ‘ an endorsemenT ThaT amounT in fhe accounT of The oppiiconT was noT sufficienT. After dishonour o The cheque vide Ex.P-3, The compiainonT vide noTice of Ex.P‘4 called ' pon The appiicanT To make The puymenf VogoinsT The cheque issued by him, which was received by The appeHanT vide ocknowiedgemenT of E .P-6 and Thereof-fer The complainT was n H w WWW WWW WWW -Z/ Wm (W) WW ®€rW éqaffcmm fiied. Ail The documen'is have been duly proved by Suman Dubey @W-l) and one G.C. Joshi (PW-2), Offi The courfs below have recorded a concurren‘i finding of fuci', +he same is based on +he prqier evidence available on record an: -s impugned order which calls 1 revisional Jurisdicfion. In Thé resuH', The revisk be dismissed and i1- is hereby di i DI-DRENDRA MISI-mA Judge i i :er of fhe Sfufe Bank a‘f Indore. uppreciufian of oral and documentary i 'H1er'e is na infirmity or' iiiegaiify in The 'or- infer-ference by fhis Courf under m being devoid of substance is iiubie f0 smissed. “‘4 Sci/- G RPRJ FS/246< s 2/2007 5&000‘ K :9 WW n1 zoo