Crl. Revision No. 736 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.736 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 30, 2010 Balram ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Sandeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Hamid Hussain, Advocate, for respondent No.2. SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act') by Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula vide judgment dated 7.7.2008. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 138 of the Act. He was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide judgment dated 30.7.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. Crl. Revision No. 736 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the trial Court in para 1 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- “ The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused on the allegations, inter-alia, that the complainant Hamid Hussan is the sole proprietor of M/s H.H. Handicrafts. The accused purchased handicrafts items from the complainant and in order to discharge his liability, accused issued an account payee cheque bearing no.695662 dt. 6.7.2003 for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the complainant. However, when the complainant presented the cheque in question in his bank i.e. State Bank of Patiala, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, complainant got a registered A.D. Legal notice dated 27.10.03 issued to accused asking him to make the payment of the amount mentioned in the cheques within fifteen days but to no effect. It is alleged that the accused issued the cheque in question with malafide intention and committed an offence punishable under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is prayed that the accused may be summoned, tried and punished for the criminal offence committed by him.” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the opinion that no ground for interference is made out. The complainant in order to prove his case appeared in the witness box as C.W.1. The case of the complainant is that the accused had purchased handicrafts from the complainant and had issued a cheque in Crl. Revision No. 736 of 2010 (O&M) 3 question for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in discharge of the said liability. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned back with remarks “insufficient funds”. Despite service of notice by the complainant through his counsel on the petitioner, the cheque amount was not paid by the petitioner to the complainant and hence the complaint in question was filed. Para 9 of the judgment passed by the trial Court reads as under :- “In the case in hand, the accused has admitted issuing the cheque in question in favour of the complainant but has claimed that the same was issued as security for the business transaction between Jarnail and complainant. The accused has not examined said Jarnail Singh to establish that the cheque in question was issued by him as security in the business transaction between Jarnail Singh and complainant. In case titled as M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and another, 2006(3) CCC 468, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that dishonour of cheque if issued for security or for any other purpose, the same does not come within the purview of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. No doubt the accused has claimed that he had issued the cheque in favour of the complainant as security for business transaction between one Jarnail Singh and complainant but the accused has failed to establish either the said business transaction or that he had issued the cheque as security for the said business transaction. In the absence of any such evidence, legal presumption that the cheque was issued for discharging an antecedent liability shall continue.” Crl. Revision No. 736 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Thus, the petitioner had admitted the issuance of cheque but had taken the plea that the same had been issued as a security for business transaction. The reasons given by the trial Court while disbelieving the plea taken by the petitioner that the cheque had been issued for security are sound reasons. The appeal filed filed by the petitioner was dismissed in his absence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. After the passing of the judgment by the Appellate Court the petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the judgments passed by the Courts below but has failed to surrender to undergo imprisonment as imposed by the Courts below. The reasons given by the trial Court while ordering the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and the reasons given by the Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner are sound reasons. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) September 30, 2010 JUDGE Anand