CRR No.320 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.320 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.02.2011 Jaswinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Accused has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 2.9.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, as well as judgment dated 8.1.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (adhoc) Fast Track Court, Rupnagar, whereby complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was allowed and accused/revisionist was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that accused obtained an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant on 16.1.2005 and promised to repay the same on demand to the complainant. In order CRR No.320 of 2011 (O&M) -2- to discharge the liability the accused issued cheque dated 18.5.2005 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- payable at State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Morinda in favour the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his bankers i.e. State Bank of India, on 5.11.2005 for the realization of the amount of cheque in question. However, the cheque in question was returned unpaid with the remarks “insufficient funds” vide memo dated 5.11.2005. The accused knowing it fully that there was no amount sufficient for the encashment of the cheque in question, issued the cheque to defraud the complainant and as such he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has sent notice through registered post to the accused on 17.11.2005 which was received by him and the registered cover issued on the other address at Amloh was not returned back, as such, it is presumed that the same was also received by the accused. The accused has failed to make the payment of the cheque amount within the stipulated period. Complainant examined himself as CW2 and has also produced Dilbagh Singh as CW1. Complainant CW2 has proved that accused had accused had obtained an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant for purchase of petrol pump and on demand to refund the amount has issued cheque bearing No.422742 dated 18.5.2005; cheque was presented for the encashment in State Bank of India, Morinda, on 18.5.2005, which was returned back with the entry “insufficient funds”. CW1 bank official has proved the return memo and has also proved the bank account that on the date of presentation of cheque there was insufficient balance in the account of the accused. CRR No.320 of 2011 (O&M) -3- In defence, DW1 and DW2 were examined and accused has tried to prove that a settlement was arrived at between the parties for a total sum of Rs.40,000/- to be paid in two instalments of Rs.20,000/- each and when cheque was demanded back after mutual settlement, complainant had assured that he will not mis-use the cheque. From the statement of the defence witnesses it stands proved that cheque was issued by the accused/revisionist and revisionist could not prove that deal was struck only for Rs.40,000/- in lieu of the cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-. Case of the complainant is fully proved even from the defence taken by the accused/revisionist. In the present case issuance of cheque is proved in discharge of liability, presentation of cheque is proved, return of cheque with the remarks “insufficient funds” is proved, statutory notice is proved, hence in the opinion of this Court, both the Courts below were well within their jurisdiction while passing the conviction order against the accused. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked only when a good piece of evidence is escaped from the notice of the Court or Court below has committed manifest error of law or jurisdictional error resulting in vitiation of the trial. No interference is called for. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge February 22, 2011 R.S.