IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2880 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 04, 2011 Balwant Singh. ….Petitioner Versus Ram Singh. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner/revisionist – Balwant Singh has challenged judgment dated 16.12.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ropar, by virtue of which, the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo CRR No. 2880 of 2010 further SI for a period of one month, as well as, the judgment dated 20.09.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ropar, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned judgment was dismissed. Not satisfied with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by way of present revision petition. In a nutshell, the facts for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner – accused is the relative of the complainant; due to relationship, the complainant gave general power of attorney to the accused to sell his land situated in village Chintgarh. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the accused had sold the land of the complainant without his consent and free will to one Gurmeet Singh. The complainant approached him to give, the sale price of the land. The accused issued cheque dated 23.05.2008 for a sum of Rs.13 lacs in favour of the complainant, which, on presentation in the Bank for its encashment, was returned back due to insufficient funds in the Bank in the name of the accused. Legal notice was served upon the accused-petitioner. Despite service of notice, petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount and hence, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. After preliminary evidence, petitioner was summoned by the Trial Court After closure of the evidence of 2 CRR No. 2880 of 2010 the complainant, statement of the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure ha stated that cheque in question was procured from him under police pressure. The petitioner did not lead any defence evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act as noticed above. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and in fact, it was incumbent upon the complainant to prove that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of his enforceable liability. He has further argued that the petitioner has not issued any cheque to the complainant and in fact, the cheque in question was procured from the accused under the pressure of the police when both the parties were called in Thana to settle the land transaction dispute, but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate all these material points, and as such, the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. The stand of the petitioner is that the said cheque was procured under police pressure when both the parties 3 CRR No. 2880 of 2010 were called in Thana for settling the dispute of land transaction. Both the Courts below have recorded finding of fact that plea of the accused that cheque in question was procured by the complainant under the pressure of the police cannot be accepted because no complaint has ever been filed by the accused before the higher authorities to the effect that the complainant has procured the cheque in question under the pressure of the police; no application was ever moved by the accused to his bank stopping the payment stating that cheque was procured from him under the police pressure; accused has not replied the notice of the complainant stating that he has not issued any cheque willingly and same was procured by the complainant under the police pressure; long silence by the accused in the case shows that there is no reality in the assertion made by the accused at the subsequent stage of the trial. In the opinion of this Court, signatures on the cheque is admitted to the accused. Story set up by the defence that cheque was procured by the complainant under the police pressure was not accepted by both the Courts below. There is no ground to disturb the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below on this question. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to show any manifest error or law or jurisdictional or procedural error committed by the Courts below amounting to failure of 4 CRR No. 2880 of 2010 justice, rather there is ample evidence available on the record which goes to prove the guilt of the accused. Moreover, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. This is not a case where an important piece of evidence was left out by the Courts below while deciding the case. I find no illegality or infirmity in the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. As a sequel to my above discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. May 04, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 5