IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 2881 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : November 16, 2009. Manjit Kaur ...... Petitioner(s). Versus. State of Punjab and another ..... Respondent(s). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. R.K. Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner (s). AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present revision petition is for setting aside the order dated 20.10.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof she will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. On an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 21.10.2009. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. He further contends that he is not agitating the matter on merits, but prays that the Court may interfere on the question of quantum of sentence in the present case. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case as also the impugned judgments. CRR No. 2881 of 2009. The sentence, which has been awarded to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, is fully justified, which does not call for any interference by this Court. On merits as well it is apparent from the judgment of the learned Appellate Court as mentioned in paras-13, 14, 15, and 16, which read as follows, there is no illegality in the order, which would call for any interference by this Court. 13. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. There is no presumption that cheque in question was issued for the discharge of a legal liability. Accused admitted her signatures on the cheque in her cross examination. The onus to prove that the cheque was not issued for the discharge of legal liability, was upon the accused. She has not led any evidence to rebut the presumption against her. While appearing as her own witness, accused stated in cross examination that there was no relationship between the complainant and Manmohan Singh; that Kulwant Kaur is Jat by caste, whereas Manmohan Singh is Ghumiar; that Kulwant is resident of village Ghasitpur, whereas Manmohan Singh resides at Mukerian. She could not say whether Manmohan Singh was a money lender. It has come in the statement of the complainant that accused is sister of husband of her sister-in- law (husband's sister). When accused is related to the complainant, there is no explanation why complainant would file false complaint if cheque in fact was given to Manmohan Singh and not to the present complainant. It has come on record that husband of complainant used to live abroad and -2- CRR No. 2881 of 2009. amount in question was lying at home, when it was given to the accused. 14. It has also come in statement of complainant that after the cheque was dishonoured, she served a notice dated 17.04.2006 upon the accused, which was duly received by her. The acknowledgment receipt has been proved on file as Exhibit C4. Accused has denied her signatures on said acknowledgment receipt, but she admits that she is resident of village Pawar. The notice was also sent to the accused at her address at village Pawar. The postal receipt is Exhibit C3, vide which notice was sent. No question was put to the complainant that she did not serve any notice before the complainant filed the complaint or acknowledgment Exhibit C4 did not bear the signatures of the accused. There was not even a suggestion given to the complainant that acknowledgment receipt Exhibit C4 did not bear the signatures of the accused. Mere denial by accused that acknowledgment Exhibit C4 does not bear her signatures, is not sufficient to hold that notice was served upon her. If no money was borrowed by the accused from the complainant, there is no explanation why she did not send any reply to said notice. In a case reported as Gorantla Venkateswara Rao v. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao and another 2006 Crl. L.J. 1, it was held that failure of accused to give reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant is one of strong circumstances to draw an inference that accused borrowed amount from the complainant and cheque was issued -3- CRR No. 2881 of 2009. towards part payment of legally enforceable debt. It was further held that where accused failed to lead defence evidence which may be probable to show that blank cheque was issued to implicate him, the accused is said to have failed to discharge his burden and he cannot escape from criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 15. The argument advanced by learned counsel for appellant that complainant or her husband would not pay a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the accused, when accused was not paying back the amount in question, this argument is without merit. It is for the Civil Court to see whether amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- was in fact paid to the accused on 10.05.2006 or not. 16. the discussion made above thus leads to the only inference that accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,66,000/- from the complainant and for the discharge of said legal liability, she issued the cheque Exhibit C1, which when presented by the complainant was returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. It is also proved on record that complainant served a legal notice upon the accused, which was duly received by accused, but she failed to pay the amount of the cheque to the complainant within stipulated period, which led to institution of present complaint. The cheque in question having been issued for discharge of legal liability, there is no merit in the appeal. It is, therefore, held that there is no illegality with the judgment/order passed by the learned Trial Court, which is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. -4- CRR No. 2881 of 2009. Appellant/accused is ordered to be taken in custody and sent to jail for undergoing the remaining part of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. Record of learned Trial Court be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.” Finding no merits in the present revision petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE November 16, 2009. sjks. -5-