Criminal Revision No. 2546 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2546 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.11.2009 M/s Shri Ram Tractors and another ..... Petitioners vs M/s Shobit Polyclinic Private Limited ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Petitioner no. 2 is the proprietor of petitioner no. 1- firm. He has filed the present revision before this Court challenging his conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years which was reduced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to one year. The order granting compensation of Rs. 3,26,383/- by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar, was also upheld. The brief facts are that complainant M/s Shobit Polyclinic Private Limited through its Director Jaswant Rai lodged a complaint with the allegation that accused are authorised dealer of Standard Tractors at Jind and the complainant-company is an authorised stockist of Standard Tractors for Haryana. The accused company received tractors from the complainant on credit basis from time to time and made payment to the complainant. In part payment to discharge their liability accused issued cheque no. 0069124 dated 19.5.2005 amounting to Rs. 3,26,383/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Peelukhera (Jind), in favour of the complainant, which was signed by the accused- petitioner. On presentation of cheque for encashment, it was returned by the bank with the remarks “insufficient fund”. Information in this regard was given to the accused-petitioner and legal notice was also sent but no payment was made. Thereafter, the complainant, who was duly authorised by the complainant-company filed the complaint in the court in which the accused-petitioner has been found guilty and convicted as aforesaid. Criminal Revision No. 2546 of 2009 (2) Admittedly, there is nothing on record which was proved by the accused-petitioner that the blank cheque was given during business transaction only for the security purposes. Rather the amount was pending against the accused company and accused-petitioner had issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant in discharge of his business liability. The learned courts below have rightly held that the amount for which the cheque was issued was pending against him in business transaction. The accused also got registered FIR, Ex. D1, with the allegations that blank cheques issued by him were misused by the complainant. However, on investigation it was found by the police that neither the blank cheque was given nor it was misused by the complainant. The FIR was cancelled by the police. So, the plea of the accused-petitioner that the blank cheque was misused by the complainant was falsified and the court below has rightly considered the same against the accused-petitioner. The burden of proving that no amount was due towards the petitioner-company and that the accused-petitioner has issued the cheque only for the security purpose was on the accused-petitioner, which he failed to discharge, and, thus, it cannot be said that his conviction is wrong. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant Jaswant Rai is not competent to institute proceedings on behalf of the complainant-company as the resolution Ex. P2 is not signed by any other Director of the company for the reason that the complainant has proved Ex. P2 vide which the authority was given to him to file and prosecute the present complaint on behalf of M/s Shobit Polyclinic Private Limited. Further the accused has also admitted his signatures on the cheque in question it is not his case that he could only sign and cannot write more than his signatures. The petitioner has also been afforded opportunity to make the payment of the cheque in question and also to settle the account but he failed to do so. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has already taken a lenient view while reducing the period of sentence from two years to one year. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the courts below had committed any error in convicting the accused- petitioner. Accordingly, findings of the court below are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed being without merit. 5.11.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge