IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 243 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision : April 30, 2009 Rajinder Petitioner Versus Kamlesh Walia Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: None for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the respondent A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The case relates to dishonouring of Cheque No. 126163 dated 29.6.93 for Rs. 120610/-. The cheque was duly tendered by the complainant/respondent which was dishonoured, resultantly a complaint was filed. The trial resulted into conviction and appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. The petitioner had set up the plea that he had returned the entire amount but the complainant forged and fabricated the affidavit Ex. PW 3/4. The complainant has admitted the signatures and body of the cheque. No doubt the name and amount of the petitioner are in different handwriting and pen but the body of the cheque is neither in the hand of the complainant nor in the hand of her husband. The receipts mark A, B and C with regard to payment of money were never put to the complainant. After considering statement of Gurmangat Singh (DW 1) and handwriting Crl. Revision No. 243 of 2003 2 expert Jassy Ahluwalia (DW 2) it would be observed that if the affidavit is found to be forged, even then return of money is not established. The cheque is genuine one as the expert avoided to compare the signatures of the petitioner on the cheque. The testamony of Gurmangat Singh has also not been believed. As he being in possession of the account books could prepare the same suiting to the petitioner at any time. The income tax returns were not produced. I have given thoughtful consideration to the pleas set up by the complainant as well as the petitioner and it is observed that both the Courts below have considered the entire evidence and held the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. No material could be elicited from the record which may impel this Court to differ with the findings of fact, returned by both the Courts below. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 30.04.2009 JUDGE reena