Crl. Rev. No.358 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.358 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10 - 3 - 2010 Master Ram Rakha Mal .....Petitioner v. Makhan Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Jasjit Singh, Advocate for Mr.Jagpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been preferred by Master Ram Rakha Mal. He was prosecuted by respondent Makhan Singh in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act'). The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar vide its order dated 11.7.2008 found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Petitioner filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court Crl. Rev. No.358 of 2009 [2] dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition has been preferred. Makhan Singh had filed a complaint on 3.3.2000. In the complaint, it was averred that the accused-petitioner in discharge of the liability towards the complainant, issued a cheque No.551944 dated 3.10.2000 for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn at Punjab National Bank, Abohar from account No.28798. The complainant presented the cheque to his banker, namely, Punjab & Sind Bank, Abohar for encashment but the same was returned on 4.10.2000, as there were insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Complainant served a registered AD notice on 17.10.2000. The complaint was filed on 3.11.2000. Complainant appeared as CW3. He reiterated as to what was stated in the complaint. Tarlochan Singh appeared as CW1 and R.K.Batala appeared as CW2. Complainant examined Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as CW4 and closed his evidence. Thereafter statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same. In defence, petitioner examined Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert. Regarding the signatures of the accused-petitioner, two conflicting reports are there, one given by Anil Kumar Gupta CW4 and the other by Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan DW1. This matter was examined by both the Courts below. The lower Appellate Court in para 10 of the judgment has observed as under:- “10. I am afraid that these submissions have no substance in view of the fact that when the complainant put to cross Crl. Rev. No.358 of 2009 [3] examination had stated that the amount in question was lying with him at his house. The complainant thereafter was not put any question by the accused/appellant in cross examination elicit the information regarding his source of income. Thus, I do not find any un-natural fact that complainant was having that much money at this house. Moreover, there is presumption under law that negotiable instrument like a cheque is for consideration. Thus, I hold that accused had borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant.” The trial Court also examined the disputed signatures of the accused-petitioner very minutely and came to the conclusion that report given by Anil Kumar Gupta CW4 has to be relied upon. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot determine the question of fact upon which both the Courts below have recorded the findings of fact. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque was issued in the year 2000. Petitioner is in the corridors of the Courts for the last about 10 years and has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. It is submitted that petitioner is now aged about 65 years, as in the notice of accusation served upon the petitioner on 28.11.2001, age of the petitioner was recorded as 57 years. Taking into consideration the protracted trial and age of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awarded upon him is suitably reduced. Accordingly, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. With Crl. Rev. No.358 of 2009 [4] these observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 10, 2010. JUDGE RC