IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1821 of 2009 Date of decision : August 18, 2009 Didar Singh ....Petitioner versus Jangir Singh Malhotra ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) By way of instant revision petition, Didar Singh has challenged his conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below. Respondent Jangir Singh filed criminal complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act) against petitioner alleging that the respondent in September, 1998 advanced loan of Rs 3,50,000/- to the petitioner for purchase of tractor and other agricultural implements, on interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. The petitioner agreed to repay the loan amount with interest after four months. In the last week of December, 1998, the complainant-respondent demanded the loan amount and interest. Thereupon, the petitioner issued impugned cheque dated 1.1.1999 in favour of the respondent for Rs 3,71,000/- i.e. Rs 3,50,000/- as principal amount and Rs 21,000/- as interest. However, the Criminal Revision No. 1821 of 2009 -2- said cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount even pursuant to demand notice sent by the respondent. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala vide judgment and order dated 20.10.2005 convicted the petitioner under section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs 1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. The appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed vide judgment dated 29.5.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Patiala. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. There is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner by the courts below. The said finding which is based on appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner has admitted his signatures on the impugned cheque. The cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Demand notice was served on the petitioner but he failed to pay the cheque amount. Guilt of the petitioner is, thus, proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had moved application for additional evidence before the appellate court but the said application has been dismissed vide impugned judgment of the appellate court along with appeal. However, the appellate Criminal Revision No. 1821 of 2009 -3- court has recorded sufficient reasons for dismissing the said application as contained in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment of the appellate court reproduced here under :- “19. Through the application filed on 17.4.2009 accused sought permission to lead additional evidence because he want to summon record from the bank of the complainant with respect to the cheque whereby complainant advanced loan of Rs 3,50,000/- to accused. This application has been filed by accused on the basis of statement made by CW-2 Jangir singh complainant in his cross-examination. As he stated that no document was executed for giving loan of Rs 3,50,000/- to accused about 3/3-1/2 years back. This statement of complainant was recorded on 17.2.2003. Accused did not make any effort to summon said record relating to the cheque whereby loan was advanced by complainant to accused during pendency of the case before the trial court. Present criminal appeal was instituted on 28.10.2005. Again accused did not make any effort to file this application for period of about 3-1/2 years. He filed the present application on 17.4.2009 when this appeal was fixed for arguments. So it appears that accused has filed the present appeal within malafide intention just to further protract proceedings of the case which is pending till 23.2.1999. Even otherwise from perusal of cross-examination of DW-2 Didar Singh it is made out that detail of bank account, through which cheque of Rs 3,50,000/- for advancing loan to the accused was issued has not been given. In the absence of detail with respect to the said cheque no useful purpose is going to be served by giving any opportunity to lead additional evidence. Further from cross examination of CW-2 Jangir Singh it is made out that he was not cross-examined with respect to detail of cheque and bank account. Hence, I am of the view that no ground is made out to permit the accused to lead additional evidence at this stage.” Criminal Revision No. 1821 of 2009 -4- It may be added that petitioner took the defence that respondent-complainant and his sons forcibly obtained his signatures on blank cheque under threat. However, the petitioner did not sent any reply to the demand notice to take such stand. The said version is also not proved. The petitioner never sent any such intimation to his bank that his signatures had been obtained forcibly and under threat by the complainant- respondent and his sons. The aforesaid version of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be believed. Conviction of the petitioner is well founded based on proper appreciation of evidence. There is no infirmity in the judgments of the courts below in convicting the petitioner. Conviction of the petitioner is accordingly affirmed. As regards sentence also, the petitioner does not deserve any relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not in a position to pay any amount out of the cheque amount to the complainant- respondent. The cheque in question was dated 1.1.1999 i.e. more than ten years ago. The cheque was for Rs 3,71,000/-. It was a big amount at that time. The respondent has been deprived of the said amount and interest thereon. No compensation has been awarded by the courts below. Consequently, the sentence imposed on the petitioner does not warrant reduction. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 18, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'