Crl. Rev. No. M-1107 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. M-1107 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: January 13, 2010 Parnam Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Gurmej Singh ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in this revision petition is to order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 23.01.2009 whereby the appeal of the respondent-accused has been accepted. Conviction of respondent for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Negotiable Instruments Act) has been set aside. The present revision has been filed at the instance of the complainant. The sequence of events that is made evident from perusal of para no. 16 of the impugned order is that the negotiable instrument in the context of which proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is dated 10.11.2004. The cheque was presented by the petitioner on 02.05.2005. The cheque was dishonoured on 05.05.2005 and was returned to the complainant on 10.05.2005, whereafter notice was given and proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were Crl. Rev. No. M-1107 of 2009 2 initiated. Primarily the defence taken by the respondent-accused is that the cheque had not been issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability and, therefore, the proceedings are not maintainable. In the context of the defence, the material that has been placed on record indicates that the complainant pleaded that the cheque was given to the petitioner in discharge of liability that arose on settlement by a civil dispute before a Civil Court. It was pleaded that the respondent-accused gave the cheque for Rs. 6.00,000/- to the complainant on 22.12.2005 in discharge of the liability whereupon the civil suit was disposed of. On presentation of the cheque, the same has been dishonoured and hence the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are maintainable and the respondent accordingly needs to be convicted and sentenced. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits the sequence of events as given out above. Learned counsel, however, has not been able to show as to how cheque received on 22.12.2005 came to be presented in the bank on 02.05.2005. Sequence of events further reflect that the cheque had been returned to the complainant on 10.05.2005 i.e. approximately seven months before the alleged settlement of dispute before the Civil Court when the complainant received the cheque and suffered a statement. In view of the conclusions drawn by the Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in para nos. 15 to 17), no ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. 13.01.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE