Crl.Rev No.3134 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev No.3134 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.08.2011 Balvinder Singh Yadav ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.Jindal 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. --- Present: Mr.Vivek Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana, Mr.Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Balvinder Singh Yadav accused/petitioner (herein referred as the petitioner) was slapped with the sentence of six months under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as the Act), by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar on account of Crl.Rev No.3134 of 2010 2 dishonour of the cheque issued by him in the sum of ` 4,23,000/- and he was further directed to pay a sum of ` 2,00,000/- on account of compensation under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to respondent No.2. The appellate court vide judgment dated 17.11.2010, while dismissing the appeal and accepting the revision filed by the complainant, enhanced the compensation to the tune of ` 5,00,000/- payable by the petitioner. In nutshell the allegations, as contained in the complaint filed by Ram Singh complainant (hereinafter referred as the complainant), are that in order to discharge his legally enforceable liability of loan, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.269112 dated 18.05.2004 for a sum of ` 4,23,000/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Mandi Adampur in favour of complainant/respondent. When the cheque was tendered for collection in the State Bank of Patiala, Charkhi Dadri, the same was sent by the banker of the complainant to the banker of the accused but the latter returned the same with the remarks 'insufficient funds' about which he was informed vide memo dated 25.05.2004 which was received by him on 27.05.2004. A legal notice was served upon the petitioner on 10.06.2004 but it remained unresponded. Consequently, complaint was filed. On examining preliminary evidence, the learned trial court issued process, whereupon the petitioner appeared in court, Crl.Rev No.3134 of 2010 3 consequently, he was served with a notice of accusation but he opted to contest the complaint. In order to substantiate the allegations, the complainant appeared in the witness box as (PW 1) and examined PD Pahwa an employee of the State Bank of Patiala, Mandi Adampur (PW 2). The complainant also placed on the record cheque bearing No.CA 269112 dated 18.5.2004 Ex.P.1, Memo of bank Ex.P.2 accompanied with Ex.P.3, letter issued for the dishonouring of the cheque Ex.P.4, copy of notice Ex.P.5, Postal receipts Ex.P.6, Registered envelope Ex.P.7 and acknowledgment receipt Ex.P.8. When examined under section 313 Cr.PC, the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. He further stated that he had no legal liability. Ram Singh complainant procured the cheque fraudulently and forcibly. He also denied his signatures on the cheque and stated that Ram Singh himself forged his signatures and lodged this complaint. In defence, he examined Rajender Singh (DW 1) and ASI Gulzari Lal No.865 (DW 2) and tendered, photocopy of record of Market Committee Ex.DX and photo copy of DDR Ex.DY. Trial resulted into conviction. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Due execution of the cheque has been proved by the complainant. Silence over the notice also invites adverse inference Crl.Rev No.3134 of 2010 4 against him. Had the cheque been forged by him, then the petitioner must have lodged an FIR against the complainant or agitated the issue otherwise but nothing of the sort was done. After the cheque was tendered, notice was given in due time. The complaint was also presented within limitation. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the company of the petitioner stood closed on 31.03.2001, whereas the cheque is dated 18.5.2004. Since the petitioner had already closed his firm in 2001, therefore, no cheque could be issued by him after 3 years. In order to prove that the firm was closed on 31.3.2001, he has examined DW 1 Rajender Singh, Accountant Marketing Committee, Adampur, who stated that Yadav Trading Company of which petitioner Balvinder Singh was the proprietor stood closed on 31.3.2001. However, during his cross- examination, he has stated that he did not visit the shop personally to inquire, if it has been closed. His only deposition is to the effect that if somebody does not come for renewal of the firm after 31st March of the year, then that firm is treated as closed. Having considered the contention, no force could be found in the same. The fault in non-registration of the firm with Market Committee by itself does not prove that the petitioner had closed his business altogether and he had not issued the cheque. It was only income tax returns, the dissolution deed, the electric and water connection etc. which could prove that the shop stands closed but if Balvinder Singh has been running the business despite not Crl.Rev No.3134 of 2010 5 getting the licence renewed then he is to face the music but that does not invalidate the transactions entered into by him with his customers. It has come in evidence that the cheque book relates to him and the cheque was issued from the same Cheque Book in 2004. Furthermore, no such plea has been raised by the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC. The only suggestion given to the witness (PW 1) is that cheque is forged and was obtained forcibly by him which implies that the cheque bears his signatures but no evidence of force or coercion has been brought on record. There are concurrent findings of both the courts below that the petitioner issued the cheque in discharge of legally enforceable liability which was dishnoured on account of “insufficient funds”. No such perversity or illegality much less irregularity has been detected in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this court. Evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective, as such, no interference is called for at this revisional stage. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 18.08.2011 Judge rp