Criminal Revision No.1273 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1273 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:May 07, 2010 Shamsher Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Ujagar Singh and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Shamsher Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`the Act' for short) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. in a complaint filed by complainant-Ujagar Singh-respondent No.2 vide judgment dated 4.3.2010. Vide order dated 5.3.2010, accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant under Section 138 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide judgment dated 29.4.2010. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the appellate Court in Criminal Revision No.1273 of 2010 (O&M) 2 para 2 of its judgment, are reproduced here in below:- “2.In short, Complainant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the accused in the court of JMIC, Ambala on the allegations that he was acquainted with the accused for the last many years. Accused had approached him to advance them some loan. Accordingly, he (complainant) had extended he friendly loan of Rs. 4 lakhs to them in the month of May, 2007. In order to discharge their liability, accused had issued cheque No. 917688 dated 10.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. Ambala City in his favour. He had presented this cheque for payment. However, the cheque was returned unpaid with the remarks `funds insufficient'. He had issued the notice dated 13.12.2007. The notice was duly served upon the accused. However, accused did not make the payment. On these facts, complainant had filed the present complaint under Section 138 of the Act. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, cheque in dispute is dated 10.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for encashment of the complainant, the same was returned by the Bank with remarks "insufficient" funds. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have found that the petitioner was guilty of the charge framed against him. The appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal in para 13 of its judgment, has held as under:- “The case of the complainant is that accused had issued cheque Criminal Revision No.1273 of 2010 (O&M) 3 (Ex.C1) in discharge of his debt. The cheque was presented for payment. However, the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. He had issued notice (Ex.C3). However, the notice was received back unserved as accused had refused to accept the same. Complainant has proved on the record the cheque as well as notices. The original unserved notices are Ex.C7 and C8 on which it is mentioned that accused had refused to accept the notice, I am of the considered view that there is no force in the contention of counsel for the accused that accused were not maintaining any account with ICICI Bank. This is abundantly clear from the testimony of Tarun Nanda (DW1), who in his cross-examination, has admitted that memo (Ex.C2) was issued by ICICI Bank. The memo contains cheque No. 917688, issued in favour of the Complainant. Had the accused not been maintained any account with the bank, the bank would have returned the cheque with the remarks that the cheque- leaf had not been issued by the bank and they may have also proceeded against the accused for forging the cheque leaf of the bank. That apart, Tarun Nanda (DW1), in his testimony, has also admitted that the memo bears the signature of Mrs. Kamaljit Kaur, Senior Officer of the bank. This clearly establishes that accused were maintaining account in the bank and the cheque was issued by them. I am of the considered view that there is no force in the contention of the counsel for the accused that there is no evidence on the record that complainant had paid this money to the accused. Complainant has produced on the record a copy of his Criminal Revision No.1273 of 2010 (O&M) 4 bank-account (Ex C10). A look at Ex.C10 would show that his money was withdrawn by Complainant from State Bank of India on 21.5.2002." The reasons given by the appellate Court are sound reasons. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge May 07, 2010 arya