CRR No. 40 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 40 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.5.2011 Kashmir Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Grewal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Rohit Sood, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. JORA SINGH, J. Kashmir Singh, preferred this revision to impugn the judgment dated 27.11.2009, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.2.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, was dismissed. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.2.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, petitioner-accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further CRR No. 40 of 2010 -2- undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Prosecutions story, in brief, is that cheque No. 0999583 dated 28.6.2000, for a sum of ` 4,55,000/- was issued by the petitioner. Cheque in question was presented and was dishonoured vide memo dated 10.7.2000, by the State Bank of India. After completion of legal formalities, complaint under Section 138 of the Act, was instituted. Defence version of the petitioner was that blank cheque was obtained by the respondent-company but the said cheque was misused and was not returned despite demand. In defence, Rachhpal Kaur, mother of the petitioner appeared and stated that on 30.11.1998, officials of the company took blank cheque from her son Kashmir Singh. As per defence version blank cheque was obtained from the petitioner on 30.11.1998 and later on cheque was misused but after 30.11.1998, no complaint to any authority that blank cheque was forcibly obtained from Kashmir Singh. In case, on 30.11.1998, officials of the company had collected blank cheque forcibly from Kashmir Singh, then immediately Kashmir Singh or his mother should have approached the police. If due to some reason Kashmir Singh or his mother was not in a position to approach the police officials then she could easily sent complaints to higher authorities. Till today no complaint to any higher authority that on 30.11.1998, respondent- company had forcibly obtained blank cheque from Kashmir Singh. During trial complainant-respondent No.2 proved lease agreement Ex. CA/1, vide which the petitioner created his liability of ` 5,90,750/-, regarding a vehicle, payable in 35 monthly instalments. Again no complaint to any authority that petitioner was forced to CRR No. 40 of 2010 -3- execute lease agreement Ex. CA/1 and ` 5,90,750/- was returned through 35 monthly instalments. Learned State counsel produced the custody certificate of the petitioner and the certificate shows that petitioner was released from jail on 9.3.2011, after completion of sentence by giving benefit of jail remissions by depositing fine. In view of the custody certificate, petitioner is out of jail and this was the reason as to why none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner after notice of motion was issued vide order dated 11.1.2010. After notice of motion vide order dated 11.1.2010, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner till today, that means petitioner is not interested to pursue the present petition. In view of all discussed above, revision petition without merits is dismissed. May 17, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE