Crl. Revision No. 717 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 717 of 2011 Date of decision:- 02.09.2011 Jagmeet Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Tek Chand and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. A.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 03.06.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri. Having scrutinized the impugned judgments, it is observed that the cheque was issued in the sum of Rs.80,000/- on 20.05.2007, which was dishonoured on 20.06.2007 and legal Crl. Revision No. 717 of 2011 2 notice was served upon the petitioner on 30.06.2007. The complainant led sufficient evidence in order to establish dishonouring of the cheques. This Court passed the following order on 28.03.2011:- “Present:-Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner states that total cheque amount is Rs.80,000/- and learned Courts below have granted compensation of Rs.1.00 Lac, which is on the higher side. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner states that petitioner is ready and willing to pay entire cheque amount along with Rs.50,000/- compensation. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner further states that applicant/petitioner shall pay Rs.50,000/- within 15 days from today and shall keep on paying the balance amount in the monthly installments of Rs.10,000/- each. Notice of motion for 19.4.2011. Application for suspension of sentence shall be considered after applicant/petitioner pays Rs.50,000/- as undertaken by learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. (Alok Singh) March 28, 2011 Judge However, the petitioner has failed to comply with the order dated 28.03.2011 in terms of payment of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, I proceed to decide the case on merit. No meaningful argument has been advanced to assail the findings returned by the Courts below. All the ingredients for proving the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stand proved against the petitioner, but the latter has failed to rebut the presumption. The scope of Crl. Revision No. 717 of 2011 3 interference at this revisional stage is very limited and restricted in nature. It could be made only if the judgments suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity. The Courts below appear to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 02.09.2011 JUDGE ajp