Criminal Revision No. 489 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 489 of 2002 Date of Decision: 19.5.2010 Ranbir Singh …Petitioner Versus M/s Shree Ram Financiers …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Ms.Sonika Kapadia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Mr.Niraj Bhutani, Advocate for surety Daryao Singh. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Ranbir Singh son of Daryao Singh, who was named as an accused in Complaint Case No. 454/2 dated 17.7.1993 for the offence under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “1881 Act”). The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 18.9.1998, held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the 1881 Act and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period Criminal Revision No. 489 of 2002 2 of one month. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner has filed an appeal. The Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 21.2.2002, dismissed the same. Hence, the present revision petition. In pursuance of order dated 12.5.2010, Ms. Sonika Kapadia, Advocate, who has been appointed to defend petitioner Ranbir Singh by the Haryana State Legal Services Authority at Chandigarh, has caused appearance on his behalf. Petitioner Ranbir Singh was tried in a complaint instituted by M/s Shree Ram Financiers, Asandh Road, Panipat, for the offence under Section 138 and 142 of the 1881 Act. The complainant has set out a case that the accused/petitioner had taken a loan, returnable with interest at the rate of 20% per annum. In discharge of his liability, he had issued a cheque bearing No. 0743068 dated 19.5.1993 for a sum of Rs.77,259/-, which was presented by the complainant in the Punjab National Bank, Asandh Road, Panipat, for encashment. The cheque was drawn on Central Bank of India, Panipat. The same was returned on 21.5.1993 with remarks that there were insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. A statutory notice was served upon the petitioner but he failed to make the payment, which resulted into institution of the complaint. After preliminary evidence having been recorded, petitioner was summoned to stand trial. CW.1 Neeraj Syal appeared on behalf of the complainant and stated that the complainant company was registered at Chandigarh. The Criminal Revision No. 489 of 2002 3 petitioner had obtained a loan for purchase of a car. The loan was disbursed on hire purchase basis and the rate of interest was 20% per annum. He further stated that when the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured with remarks that there were insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. In cross-examination, he denied that his finance company was not registered and was not its Managing Partner. He further stated that he had not brought the statement of account and was not in a position to tell as to how much amount was outstanding against the petitioner. He had also not produced the agreement whereby the loan was advanced to the petitioner. CW.2 Prem Parkash stated that the complainant was having account in Punjab National Bank. The cheque Ex.P3 was presented by the complainant for encashment and the same was forwarded, for clearance, to the Central Bank of India where it was dishonoured because there were insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. CW.3 Pawan Raj Pal produced the ledger account of the petitioner, maintained by the Central Bank of India, G.T. Road, Panipat. CW.4 Mangat Ram was a Clerk, to Y.P. Jagga, Advocate, who had issued a statutory notice to the petitioner. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that the case was false and Neeraj Syal, complainant, was an influential person. The complainant has fabricated the papers and various requests, made by the accused to give statement of account, were turned out. On 8.2.1994, the statement of accused was recorded by the Court wherein he stated that the said Maruti Car had suffered an Criminal Revision No. 489 of 2002 4 accident. He received a sum of Rs.22,571/- from the Insurance Company which was paid to the complainant after institution of the complaint and he would pay the remaining amount within two months. On 8.2.1994, the age of petitioner was recorded as 38 years. Ms. Sonika Kapadia, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has stated that the complainant, during his cross-examination, has failed to divulge the amount which was outstanding against the petitioner. She further submits that various requests made by the accused for furnishing the statement of account, were not accepted by the complainant. She further submits that infact the accused had paid more amount than what was due. Infact, the complainant had later filled the blank cheque, given as security. She further contends that the notice, as required under the provisions of 1881 Act, was not served upon the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the respondent, submits that the cheque, infact, was issued and on its presentation in the bank, the same had failed. Thus, the ingredients of the offence are made out against the petitioner. From the perusal of record, it is evident that the petitioner had issued a cheque on 19.5.1993 for an amount of Rs.77,259/- and during the pendency of the complaint, he had paid Rs.22,571/- to the complainant. It has also come in the cross-examination of CW.1 Neeraj Syal that the statement of account was not given to the accused. The statement of account and the agreement were also not produced in the Court. The complainant admitted that various amounts have been paid by the accused towards the discharge of the loan amount. The cheque, Criminal Revision No. 489 of 2002 5 in the present case, was issued in the year 1993. A period of 17 years is going to elapse. The petitioner was taken into custody on 21.2.2002. He was ordered to be released by this Court on 1.4.2002. The petitioner has already undergone about one month and ten days out of six months simple imprisonment, awarded to him. The petitioner had taken the loan at a very high rate of interest. He has been making the payment to the financier. The petitioner cannot be termed as one who is in the habit of not making payment to the financier. Admittedly, he had paid a sum of Rs.22,571/- to the complainant during the pendency of the complaint. Taking the whole gamut of the case into consideration, this Court is of the view that conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, sentence of six months simple imprisonment, awarded to the petitioner, is reduced to that of already undergone. The sentence of fine and default clause are maintained. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 19, 2010 “DK”