Criminal Revision No.545 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.545 of 2007 Date of decision: 13.01.2009 Tarsem Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Jatinder Kumar .......Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Arun K.Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short- “ the Act”) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- vide judgment and order dated 7.3.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.2.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Hence, the present Criminal Revision No.545 of 2007 2 revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment dated 15.2.2007, is reproduced herein below:- “Complainant Jatinder Kumar was doing the business in partnership with the accused. Later on the complainant separated himself from the said business and the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- became due to the complainant after the dissolution of the partnership. The accused in order to discharge of his liability issued a cheque dated 11.5.2003 for an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar but the said cheque was dishonoured on 13.5.2003 due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused and requested him to make payment. The accused told the complainant to again present the cheque and assured him that it would be honoured whereupon the complainant again presented the cheque but it was again dishonoured on 20.5.2003 on the same grounds. The notice was served upon him to make payment within 15 days but the accused did not agree Criminal Revision No.545 of 2007 3 to the request of the complainant”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complainant had failed to prove his case. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner owed any amount to the complainant/respondent. In fact, the complainant was employed with the petitioner and had worked with him up to May, 2003 on a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month. In the present case a cheque was issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant on 11.5.2003 for an amount of Rs.4,80,000/-. The said cheque was dis-honoured on 13.5.2003. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box, has duly proved his case. In his cross-examination, the complainant has categorically deposed that the cheque in question was filled in by the petitioner. The petitioner lodged a Daily Diary Report that his three cheques had been lost but the same was recorded on 15.5.2003 after the cheque was dishonoured. The complainant also denied the suggestion that he had ever worked as employee of the petitioner. The plea taken by the petitioner that the complainant was working with him as an employee was, thus, not proved on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence in this regard. Accordingly, both the Courts had rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. However, Criminal Revision No.545 of 2007 4 keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner from rigorous imprisonment for two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE January 13, 2009 anita