IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1306 of 2003 Date of Decision:May 05, 2009 M/s Dadra Finance Pvt.Ltd. ...........Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar Bhatia ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Rana, Advocate for the respondent. ** Sabina, J. Respondent was tried for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`the Act' for short) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar in a complaint filed by the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 30.7.2001. Respondent was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 138 of the Act by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 21.12.2002 and the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him. Aggrieved by the same, complainant/petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Crl. Revision. M No.1306 of 2003 -2- Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are reproduced here in below:- “In brief the facts of the case is that the complaint has been filed by the complainant M/s Dadra Finance Pvt. Ltd. against the accused Vinod Kumar Bhatia under Section 138 of N.I.Act on the allegations that the complainant is a Pvt. Ltd. company and deals in Financing of vehicles of different nature. Parshotam Dadra is one of its Managing Director and the complainant, has authorised him to file the complaint against the accused Vinod Bhatia vide resolution dt. 28.2.98. Aforesaid Parshotam Dadra being M.D. is fully authorised to pursue the case and fully conversant with the facts of the present case. Further alleged that accused Vinod Bhatia took a loan from the complainant comp. which was to pay in the installments, but the payment made by the accused used to be very irregular. To discharge his legal liability debt the accused issue cheque dt. 9.1.1998 in the sum of Rs.90300/- to the complainant assuring that the cheque will be encashed on presentation in the bank as the accused had sufficient funds in his account. The complainant insisted for bank draft but the accused assured that the cheque will be encashed. Believing the assurance of the accused to be true the complainant accepted the cheque for Rs.90300/- when the said cheque was presented by the complainant through his banker Vijaya Bank, G.T.Road Jalandhar for collection, but the cheque was received back dishonoured with remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Thereafter, on receiving back the Crl. Revision No.1306 of 2003 -3- cheque complainant sent a legal notice to the accused through his counsel asking him to make the payment within stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt which was duly served upon the accused, but the accused has failed to make the payment. Hence, this complaint.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the hypothecation had been cancelled on 9.8.1996 yet there was no material on record to suggest that the due amount had been paid by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that respondent had raised a loan for purchase of a Car and the Car was hypothecated to the petitioner. Later on, the hypothecation was cancelled and the Car was transferred in favour of Sampuran Singh. The blank cheque lying with the petitioner had been filled up and the complaint in question had been filed against the respondent. Learned appellate Court has observed that the respondent had taken loan for the purchase of the vehicle and consequently, the vehicle was hypothecated with the petitioner. Thereafter, the hypothecation was cancelled and the vehicle was transferred in favour of Sampuran Singh. Record regarding transfer of the Car in question was proved by Harvinder Kaur (RW3), Clerk from the Office of District Transport Authority, Amritsar. The Car was hypothecated on 6.2.1995 and the hypothecation was cancelled on 9.8.1996. The cheque in question is dated 9.1.1998. In these circumstances, the learned appellate Court observed that the only inescapable presumption is that the blank cheque was lying with the Crl. Revision No.1306 of 2003 -4- petitioner which was without any date and it had been used later on, involve the respondent in this case. The view taken by the learned appellate Court, while acquitting the respondent of the charge framed against him, is possible and hence, calls for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge May 05, 2009 arya