Crl. Rev. No.621 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.621 of 2011 Date of Decision: 28.04.2011 Mohd. Aslam ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.4. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a revision against the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, vide which, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as well as, the order and judgment dated 03.02.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which, the appeal was dismissed. While challenging the order dated 21.11.2009, as well as, the order dated 03.02.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was never served with the mandatory notice under Section Crl. Rev. No.621 of 2011 2 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Secondly, it is highly unnatural that the complainant could have given a loan of ` 1,50,000/- to the petitioner without charging any interest. It was further stated that he did not have the mean to give the said loan. Thirdly, the said cheque was given as security and pertains to the decade of 1990 and not 2000. The complainant has misused the blank cheque. This is a revision petition. The jurisdiction of the Revisional Court is limited. Even otherwise, with respect to the service of the petitioner, a finding has been duly recorded that notice Exhibit C3 was sent through registered cover on his address at Malerkotla. This very address was also given in the complaint. The petitioner was served on this very address by the trial Court. The returned registered cover is available on the record of trial Court as Exhibit C5. Endorsement regarding return is dated 05.09.2007 and the complaint was filed on 27.09.2007. Thus, the same was in accordance with law. As per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in case, the notice is received back with the endorsement, the statutory obligation of service is deemed to have been discharged. Moreover, the said purpose of the notice period is to ensure that the accused has given sufficient time to make good the payment towards the dishonoured cheque. The petitioner has till date not come forward to make an offer towards the payment towards the dishonoured cheque. Thus, the first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not served, does not inspire confidence. Taking up the second argument that the cheque has been misused, also has no merit. The petitioner has admitted his signatures on Crl. Rev. No.621 of 2011 3 the said cheque. As such, he cannot wash his hands by stating that the same was a blank cheque. No notice was ever given to the respondent that the cheque, which was given by him, was blank and therefore, should not be deposited in the bank or misused. The argument that the respondent-complainant was not in a position to make the payment of ` 1,50,000/-, cannot be accepted, in as much as, there is no such evidence on record that the respondent- complainant did not have means to give the said loan and no such pleadings or ground was taken by the petitioner before the two Courts below. However, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is six months. The same is already on the lower side and lenient view has already been taken by the Courts below. Therefore, no ground to reduce the same is made out. Dismissed accordingly. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 28.04.2011 JUDGE gurpreet