Criminal Revision No.1718 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1718 of 2005 Date of Decision : 08.04.2011 Simran Kaur …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH -.- Present: Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gagan Mohini, A.A.G., Punjab. *** GURDEV SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, vide judgment dated 08.09.2004 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- and in default of the payment of that Criminal Revision No.1718 of 2005 -2- fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. Against that conviction and sentence she preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide his judgment dated 30.08.2005. Now she has come up with the present revision against the conviction and sentence. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent-complainant Mukhtiar Singh filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Act contending therein that the accused took from him the loan of Rs.50,000/- @ 12% P.A. as interest and in consideration thereof executed pronote and receipt in his favour on 28.08.2001. The accused against her existing liability and to pay off the debt, issued a cheque of Rs.50,000/- drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Mehli Branch, District Jalandhar with the assurance that the same would be honoured on presentation. Believing that assurance of accused, complainant presented the said cheque in his bank Punjab National Bank, G.T. Road, Phagwara for collection, but the same was dishonoured, vide memo dated 03.09.2001, on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused. He got issued a legal notice dated 22.09.2001 through registered post calling upon the accused to make the payment of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of that notice but she failed to do so. In his preliminary evidence, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and on the basis of that evidence the S.D.J.M. found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused under Section 138 of the Act. She was summoned Criminal Revision No.1718 of 2005 -3- accordingly. On her appearance before the Court notice of that offence was given to her, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove her guilt the complainant examined himself as PW1, Brij Bhushan Sharma, Computer Operator PW2 and Rajiv Kumar, Clerk-cum-Computer Operator PW3. After the complainant closed his evidence, the accused was examined and her statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of the complainant were put to her in order to enable her to explain the same. She denied all those circumstances and pleaded her false implication. She stated that the complainant is the proprietor of Simran Finance Company and she had obtained the loan from that company and the cheque in question was given to the complainant as security for the repayment of installment in respect of that loan and the same was misused by him by filling up the amount with his own hand and this cheque is forged and fabricated document. She was called upon to enter on her defence. After obtaining the permission of the trial Court she examined herself as DW-1. She also examined Rajiv Kumar, Computer Operator DW-2 and Surinder Singh DW-3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that no such loan was obtained by the accused Criminal Revision No.1718 of 2005 -4- from the complainant and in fact she had taken the loan from Simran Finance Company of which the complainant was one of the partners and at the time the said loan was obtained she had given the blank cheque by way of security which has been misused by the complainant, who dishonestly forged that cheque by filling up the columns thereof in his own hand. No liability could have been fastened to the accused on the basis thereof. The re-appreciation and reappraisal of the evidence, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, is not permissible unless this Court comes to the conclusion that the findings so recorded by the learned trial Court or the learned Appellate Court are perverse or illegal or are the result of misreading of the evidence. The examination of the records of those Courts have revealed that there is no such perversity or illegality in those findings nor it can be said that the same are based on misreading of the evidence. It was admitted by Mukhtiar Singh-complainant-PW-1 that he is one of the partners of Simran Finance Company and that accused had taken the loan from that company but he stuck to his stand that the loan in question of Rs.50,000/- was advanced by him to the accused in his personal capacity. He proved on record the pronote Ex.PA and the receipt Ex.PB, which were executed by the accused at the time when the loan was so advanced and that fact was admitted in so many words by Surinder Singh DW-3 during his cross-examination. He specifically stated that Ex.PA and Ex.PB are the pronote and Criminal Revision No.1718 of 2005 -5- receipt which were executed by the accused at the time she obtained the loan. Though he tried to connect that loan with the loan which is said to have been advanced by Simran Finance Company; yet the same is not a fact. According to the accused she had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- from that Finance Company but she was contradicted by this witness who deposed that the said loan was to the tune of Rs.17,000/- or Rs.18,000/-. In fact that was the amount, which according to the accused, had already been paid against the total loan of Rs.50,000/-. In view of the documentary evidence, consisting of the pronote Ex.PA and receipt Ex.PB, the oral evidence produced by the accused that she had not taken any loan from the complainant in his personal capacity, cannot be looked into. She has miserably failed to prove that the cheque was given by her by way of security. There is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. This order be certified to the trial Court for taking appropriate action. Records be returned forthwith. ( GURDEV SINGH ) April 08, 2011 JUDGE ashish