Crl. Revision No. 671 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 671 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 22, 2011 Sukhdev Kaur ...... Petitioner Versus Satwant Singh and another ...... Respondents **** 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. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner-Sukhdev Kaur has filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment and order dated 2.7.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide which she was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘the Act’) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two months, as well as against judgment dated 8.2.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Crl. Revision No. 671 of 2011 (O&M) 2 The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of this petition is that Satwant Singh complainant/respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act on the allegations that the accused borrowed a sum of ` 1,00,000/- from him and promised to repay the same after few months. On demand she (accused) issued a cheque Ex.P1 dated 10.11.2007 for a sum of ` 1,00,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Faridkot. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured vide memo Ex.P2 dated 10.11.2007 with remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Notice, copy of which is Ex.P3 was served upon the petitioner requiring her to pay the cheque amount, but of no effect. As the petitioner failed to pay the outstanding amount, a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed. After preliminary evidence the petitioner was summoned by the trial Court. Thereafter, notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner-accused to which she did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In after charge evidence the complainant examined himself as PW1 and closed the evidence. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein she denied all the allegations and pleaded false implication. She has examined Manish Kumar as DW1 in her defence. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, available on the record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused as noticed above. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant-respondent has no licence of money lending and it is not proved on record that his sole occupation is money lending and as such in the absence of any material it cannot be said that the complainant falls in the category of money lender. He has further argued that both the Crl. Revision No. 671 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence, available on the record, and as such the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that she had borrowed money from the complainant. PW1 complainant while appearing in the witness box had categorically deposed that the petitioner-accused borrowed a sum of ` 1,00,000/- from him and promised to repay the same and in pursuance thereof she had issued a cheque Ex.P1 dated 10.11.2007 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce which on presentation was dishonoured by the bankers. The issuance of the cheque by the petitioner is not disputed. The learned trial Court as well as the learned lower Appellate Court after going through the record have found that during the cross-examination of PW1-complainant a suggestion was put by the learned defence counsel that the petitioner had made payment of ` 18,000/- through installments of ` 1500/- per month each through Jarnail Singh, meaning thereby that she has admitted the factum of borrowing the money from the complainant. The learned Courts below after going through the record have rightly came to the conclusion that the complainant has been able to prove the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and as such convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity either in the procedure or in assessing the prosecution evidence. As such, there is no justification for this Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the revisional jurisdiction, this Court ordinarily should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach the finding different from the Crl. Revision No. 671 of 2011 (O&M) 4 learned Lower Appellate Court. In the absence of any manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. As a sequel to my above discussion, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge March 22, 2011 Anand