-1- Criminal Revision No.2430 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2430 of 2003. Date of Decision: March 17, 2010. Manikaran Steel Forgings Opposite Dhandari Station, Dhandari Kalan Road, through its proprietor Gurmangat Singh and another ...Petitioners VERSUS Sunil Kumar ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 7.3.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate -2- Criminal Revision No.2430 of 2003. Ist Class, Ludhiana, convicting petitioner Gurmangat Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days was upheld. I have heard Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, appearing for petitioner Gurmangat Singh and have gone through the records of the case. Petitioner Gurmangat Singh, who is proprietor of M/s. Manikaran Steel Forgings, Ludhiana, had issued cheque No.090880 dated 25.8.1994 for Rs.2,19,270.50 in favour of complainant-respondent Sunil Kumar in discharge of his debt on account of purchase of M-S Rod from time to time from the complainant-respondent, who is proprietor of M/s. H.L. & Sons, Ludhiana. On presentation, this cheque was dishonoured by the concerned Bank and returned with the remarks “Account Closed”. Complainant-respondent No.1 sent notice dated 16.2.1995, which was posted on 17.2.1995, to petitioner Gurmangat Singh, who did not pay the amount of the cheque to the complainant-respondent No.1. Thereafter, the complainant per force filed complaint against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act. The cheque issued by the petitioner-accused in favour of the complainant-respondent, on presentation before the -3- Criminal Revision No.2430 of 2003. concerned bank, was dishonoured with the remarks “Account Closed”. After the cheque bounced, the complainant served a registered notice through his counsel upon the petitioner-accused. In spite of that, the petitioner failed to make payment of the amount mentioned in the cheque. The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced by both the Courts below. Madan Lal (D.W.1), who was working as Accountant (Part-time) with the company owned by petitioner Gurmangat Singh, admitted in his cross-examination that the cheque in question had been signed by Gurmangat Singh. Madan Lal (D.W.1) further admitted that at the time of his deposition in Court, an amount of Rs.2,08,178/- was payable by petitioner Gurmangat Singh to complainant-respondent Sunil Kumar. In the presence of such impeccable evidence on record against petitioner Gurmangat Singh, his learned counsel could not point out any thing which may compel this Court to take a contrary view as taken by both the Courts below. It has been held in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 2000 (1) P.L.R 113 that Court will presume that holder of the cheque received it for discharge of any debt or liability and burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption, which the petitioner has not been able to do in this case. In this case, the acts which are components of the offence under Section 138 of the Act i.e drawing of the cheque, presentation of the cheque to the Bank, returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee Bank, giving notice in writing to the drawer -4- Criminal Revision No.2430 of 2003. of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and failure of the drawer to make payment within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice, stand proved on record. The facts and circumstances, discussed above, lead to the only conclusion that the petitioner has rightly been convicted by the Courts below. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act is, therefore, confirmed. The sentence imposed on the petitioner also commensurates with the offence committed by her. The impugned sentence order is also confirmed. Resultantly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. March 17, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE