Criminal Revision No. 1000 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1000 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.05.2010 Nand Kishore son of Amrik Lal Singh, C/o Tara Singh, Octroi Post, G.T. Road, Adampur, Distt. Jalandhar. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Punjab. 2. Harminder Singh son of Tirath Singh, r/o Adampur, Distt. Jalandhar. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 10.11.08, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, vide which, it convicted the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only), and, sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for Criminal Revision No. 1000 of 2010 2 a period of 01 year, and, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 01 month, and, the judgement dated 22.03.2010, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which, it modified the period of substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment, from 01 year to 06 months, and, dismissed the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 21.03.98, the accused, took a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-, from the complainant, to purchase an old tractor, and, executed an agreement, in his favour. He also issued two post- dated cheques, bearing Nos. 407891 and 407892, dated 04.08.98, in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Adampur, Doaba, in favour of the complainant. However, when the cheques, were presented, for encashment, the same, were dishonoured, and received back, vide memo dated 10.08.98, with the remarks 'Insufficient Funds.' Thereafter, a legal notice, dated 12.08.98, was sent, to the accused, by the complainant, calling upon him, to make the payment of the dishonoured cheques, within 15 days, but, in vain. Ultimately, left with no other alternative, a complaint, was filed. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court, summoned the accused, to face trial, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 4. On his appearance, in the Court, a notice containing the sum and substance of accusations, was served upon the accused, which was read-over and explained, to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. Criminal Revision No. 1000 of 2010 3 5. The complainant, examined J.S. Kalsi, Clerk/Cashier, OBC Bank (CW1), and, himself appeared as (CW2), in the witness box. Thereafter, he closed his evidence. 6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the evidence of the complainant. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that he never took a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-, nor did he issue cheque exhibits C1 and C2. It was further stated by him that, in the year 1998, he took a loan of Rs. 25,000/-, from the complainant. It was further stated by him that, after repayment, a sum of Rs. 5650/-, remained due and outstanding. It was further stated by him that, in this regard, the complainant, issued him a receipt mark A. It was further stated by him that, at the time of extending loan of Rs. 25,000/-, two blank cheques, were obtained, from him, but, even after paying the balance amount of Rs. 5650/-, despite his demand, his blank cheques, were not returned. It was further stated by him that, the cheques, were obtained, as a measure of security, for a loan of Rs. 25,000/-. It was further stated by him that, the complainant, also obtained his signatures, on a blank pronote, though, he never obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him. It was further stated by him that, he never entered into an agreement C3 with him and rather agreement C3, was forged and fabricated. It was further stated by him, that he had no knowledge, with regard to the filing of a Civil Suit, and copy of judgement exhibit C7, and decree sheet, exhibit C8. It was further stated by him that, he had been falsely Criminal Revision No. 1000 of 2010 4 implicated, in the instant case, as his sister, was in litigation with the complainant. He, however, examined Fateh Chand Sharma, Handwriting Expert (DW1), in his defence. Thereafter, he closed his defence evidence. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred, by the appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgement dated 22.03.2010, modifying the period of substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment, from 01 year to 06 months. 9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, the complainant, failed to prove that, the cheques, in question, which were allegedly issued, by the revision-petitioner, were in the discharge of legally enforceable liability. He further submitted that, no evidence, was produced, by the complainant/respondent No. 2, to prove, that the cheques, were issued, by the revision-petitioner, in the discharge of his legally enforceable liability. He further submitted that, even no evidence, was produced, by the complainant/respondent No. 2, that he had financial resources, to advance a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-, to the Criminal Revision No. 1000 of 2010 5 revision-petitioner. He further submitted that, no presumption, under the provisions of Section 139 of the Act, can be raised, that the cheques issued, were in the discharge of legally enforceable liability. He also placed reliance, on Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, 2008(1), RCR (Criminal), 695 (SC), in support of his contention. He further submitted that, the Courts below, did not take into consideration, the aforesaid aspects, as a result whereof, they fell into a grave error, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. 12. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No. 2, submitted that, the cheques, were issued, by the revision-petitioner, in the discharge of his legally enforceable liability. He further submitted that, besides the issuance of the cheques, an agreement C3, was also executed, by the revision-petitioner, wherein, he, in clear-cut terms admitted, that he was in need of money, in order to purchase a tractor, and, had obtained a loan, in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, from the complainant/respondent No. 2, and, had issued two post-dated cheques, bearing No. 407891 dated 04.08.98, for Rs. 50,000/-, and, No. 407892 dated 04.08.98, for Rs. 50,000/-, both drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Adampur, Doaba, in favour of the complainant. They further submitted that, once the signatures of the revision-petitioner, on the cheques, were proved, a statutory presumption, could be drawn, that the same were for valid consideration. They further submitted that, from the evidence, it was also proved, that the cheques, were issued, in the discharge of legally enforceable liability. 13. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival Criminal Revision No. 1000 of 2010 6 contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the judgements of the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the same, are the result of misreading or misappreciation of evidence or non-consideration of material pieces of evidence. The Courts below, on due scrutiny of the evidence of J.S. Kalsi, Clerk/Cashier, OBC Bank, CW1, and, Harminder Singh, complainant, CW2, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the same, was cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy, and, sufficient to hold the revision-petitioner guilty. C3 agreement, was also proved, by the complainant, in his statement. When C3 agreement, is read, as a whole, only one and one inescapable conclusion, that can be arrived at, is that, since the revision-petitioner, was in need of money, for the purchase of tractor, he obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-, from the complainant, and, issued two post-dated cheques. The cheques, duly supported by C3 agreement clearly go, to show, that the same, were issued, in the discharge of legally enforceable liability. Sufficient evidence, was, thus, led by the complainant, to prove this factum. Once the signatures of the revision- petitioner, on the cheques, were proved or admitted, by him, then the statutory presumption, could be drawn, that the same, were for valid consideration. In this case, neither there was misreading of evidence, nor misappreciation thereof, nor non-consideration of material pieces of evidence. The judgements of conviction and the order of sentence, Criminal Revision No. 1000 of 2010 7 rendered by the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld. 14. Coming to Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case (supra), relied upon, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, it may be stated here, that the facts thereof, are clearly and wholly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In that case, the accused, was running the business in partnership. The accused, gave four blank cheques, duly signed, to the other partner, for speedy payments, in connection with business transactions. Thereafter, the relations between the accused and the other partner became strained and they parted their ways. The other partner gave the cheques, to his near relation (complainant), who filled in the amount of Rs. 1.50 lacs, and, presented the same, to the bank. The same were dishonoured. Thereafter, the aforesaid relation of the partner, filed a complaint, under Section 138 of the Act. It was proved, in that case, that the blank cheques, which had been issued, by the accused, in favour of the other partner, had been misused by him, after relations between them became strained. It was, under these circumstances, held that, it was not proved, in that case, that the cheques, were issued, in the discharge of legally enforceable liability. It is, no doubt, true that, no statutory presumption, can be drawn, under Section 139 of the Act, that the cheques, in this case, which were dishonoured, were issued, in the discharge of legally enforceable liability. In the instant case, as stated above, the complainant, proved, through evidence, that the cheques, were issued, in the discharge of Criminal Revision No. 1000 of 2010 8 legally enforceable liability, as an agreement, was executed, by the revision-petitioner, in his favour, wherein, he admitted, that he was in need of money, and, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, from the complainant, and, issued the cheques, in his favour. Since, it was proved, that the cheques, in this case, were issued, in the discharge of legally enforceable liability, no help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, from Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case (supra). The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. 16. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgement, in accordance with law, promptly. 11.05.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE