Criminal Revision No. 413 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:May 28, 2010 Rakesh Kumar ...........Petitioner Versus M/s Sarvotam Leasing & Real Estate Ltd. And another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.B.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harsh Aggarwal,Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Rakesh Kumar was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`the Act' for short) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar in a complaint filed by complainant-M/s Sarvotam Leasing & Real Estate Ltd.-respondent No.1 vide judgment dated 18.4.2006. Vide order of even date, accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to Criminal Revision No. 413 of 2009 (O&M) -2- pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 138 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge(Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 3.2.2009. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are reproduced here in below:- “2.Briefly speaking the facts of the present case are that the complaint has been filed U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the complainant Company on the allegations that the complainant is a limited company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and Sh.Bhag Singh has been duly authorized vide resolution dated 1.10.2003 to file the complaint. The accused issued two cheques bearing no. 924984 and 935987 dated 2.8.2003 and 2.9.2003 for Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1 Lacs respectively from his account No. 110 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Focal Point, Jalandhar. However, when the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment through Indian Bank, G.T. Road, Jalandhar, and the same were dishonoured vide memos dated 13.9.2003, with the endorsement "account closed". So the complainant was compelled to got issued two separate Legal Notices demanding the amount of cheques and the said notices were served upon the accused, through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar as at that time the accused was lodged in central jail Jalandhar. So he has committed the offence punishable Criminal Revision No. 413 of 2009 (O&M) -3- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the complaint. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. During the course of this petition, the petitioner handed over a draft of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the counsel for respondent No.1 and submitted that the another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each would be paid in three installments in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The compromise was effected between the parties relating to three cases pending between the parties. However, the petitioner failed to make the payment in terms of the compromise. In the present case, cheques in dispute are dated 2.8.2003 and 2.9.2003 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively. When the said cheques were presented for encashment by the complainant, the same were dishonoured by the Bank with endorsement "account closed". There is no dispute that two separate legal notices were served upon the petitioner. Petitioner himself admitted that the cheques in question were in possession of the complainant as they were given as security . The trial Court, while convicting the petitioner, rightly held that it was not successfully proved by the petitioner that he had no liability towards the complainant company when he himself admits that he had some liability as per compromise and it cannot be said that the petitioner was not liable to be convicted for the same offence as it is a case of double jeopardy. Learned appellate Court also held that the compromise did not materialize nor any amount was paid. Both the Courts below, after Criminal Revision No. 413 of 2009 (O&M) -4- appreciating the evidence on record, have found that the petitioner was guilty of the charge framed against him. The reasons given by both the Courts below are sound reasons. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge May 28, 2010 arya