-1- Criminal Revision No.1333 of 2001. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1333 of 2001. Date of Decision: May 13 , 2010. Joginder Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS M/s Mulakh Raj, Arun Kumar Commission Agents, Pathankot, through Partner Om Parkash and another ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate with Mr. Sukhvinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. None for respondent No.1. Mr.Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the State-respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.8.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the judgment of conviction and the -2- Criminal Revision No.1333 of 2001. sentence order dated 04.11.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, convicting petitioner Joginder Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days was upheld. I have heard Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General,Punjab appearing for the State-respondent and have gone through the records of the case. Petitioner Joginder Singh, who is proprietor of the business concern known as M/s. J.S. International (Rice Millers) purchased paddy worth Rs.4,63,000/- from M/s Mulakh Raj, Arun Kumar Commission Agents (complainant-respondent No.1). As a part payment of the said amount, the petitioner-accused issued cheque for Rs.37000/- in favour of the complainant-respondent No.1. On presentation, this cheque was dishonoured by the concerned Bank and returned with the remarks that the petitioner had insufficient funds. Complainant-respondent No.1 sent notice to Joginder Singh (petitioner-accused). As is mentioned in the complaint filed by complainant-respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Act itself, the petitioner-accused sent a registered letter to the counsel for the complainant mentioning therein that he was enclosing Demand Draft No.748099 dated -3- Criminal Revision No.1333 of 2001. 17.6.1996 in favour of the complainant-firm. The said Demand Draft was for Rs.37,000/-. However, it has been mentioned in the complaint that in fact a photo-stat copy of the Demand Draft had been sent by the petitioner-accused along with the afore- mentioned letter. Thereafter, the complainant per force filed complaint against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act. The cheque issued by the petitioner-accused in favour of the complainant-respondent, on presentation before the concerned bank, was dishonoured with the remarks “insufficient funds”. After the cheque bounced, the complainant served a registered notice through his counsel upon the petitioner-accused. Admittedly, Demand Draft for the amount of the cheque had been sent by the petitioner-accused to the complainant-firm. On 20.4.2009, this Court had recorded the statement of Manjit Singh (C.W.1), who, at the relevant time was posted as Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Bhagtanwala Gate, Amritsar, where the petitioner-accused had got prepared the Demand Draft in question. Manjit Singh (C.W.1) stated that they had debited the amount from the account of the petitioner-accused and an advice was sent to the paying branch i.e Punjab and Sind Bank, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot. He further stated that they had not received `No Debit Advice' from the paying Branch. He further stated that whether the amount in relation to the Demand Draft had been paid or not, only the officials of Punjab and Sind Bank, -4- Criminal Revision No.1333 of 2001. Dalhousie Road, Pathankot could inform. Manjit Singh (C.W.1) was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner- accused wherein he stated that after the debit advice is sent to the paying Branch, no information is received by the Branch, which prepared the Draft. Reconciliation of the payment is done by the Head Office. Regarding this Draft, no information had been received from the paying Branch. It may be mentioned here that the notice issued by the complainant-respondent No.1 to the petitioner-accused demanding payment of the amount of cheque in question is dated 10.6.1996 and the Demand Draft which was got prepared by the petitioner-accused is dated 17.6.1996. It is true that the amount of the Demand Draft in question has not been paid till date by the paying Branch of the Punjab and Sind Bank, as is evident from the letter dated 6.5.2010 written by the Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot, to the Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Head Office, Reconciliation Department, New Delhi, which has been produced by an official of the Punjab & Sind Bank, Pathankot, and has been taken on record. This Court is not required to go into the details as to what were the circumstances leading to the non- encashment of the Demand Draft in question, but keeping in view the fact that the Demand Draft was for Rs.37,000/- only whereas the total amount payable by the petitioner-accused to the complainant-respondent No.1 was Rs.4,63,000/- on account of purchase of paddy by the petitioner-accused from the complainant- -5- Criminal Revision No.1333 of 2001. respondent No.1, the only inference is that the complainant was instrumental in not getting the Demand Draft encahsed so as to pressurize the petitioner to make payment of the whole amount. There is no evidence on record as to what steps were taken by the complainant-respondent No.1 with regard to the recovery of the balance amount of Rs.4,26,000/- from the petitioner-accused. Be that as it may, the petitioner-accused, under the circumstances, cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Act. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds. The same is allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. May 13, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE