Crl. Revision No. 837 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 837 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 7, 2011 Inderjit Dhamija ...... Petitioner Versus I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Raj Paul Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Inderjit Dhamija-petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by way of present revision petition challenging the summoning order dated 21.1.2011, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana in a complaint case filed by ICICI Bank Limited (for short ‘the Bank’) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’). The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that ICICI Bank has filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner-accused approached Crl. Revision No. 837 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the complainant-respondent-bank for loan, which was sanctioned, and a loan agreement executed between the parties. The petitioner, in discharge of his liability, issued cheque bearing No.529337 dated 11.12.2010 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited for a sum of ` 2603812/- in favour of the complainant Bank. On presentation of the said cheque by the complainant Bank, it was returned back by the banker of the petitioner with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Thereafter, a legal notice was served upon the petitioner which was duly served upon the accused-petitioner, however, he failed to pay the cheque amount within 15 days, therefore, a complaint was filed in the Court. The complainant-Bank in its preliminary evidence examined CW1 Rajiv Pathak, who has proved various documents including the cheque in question, memo, legal notice etc. and thereafter closed the evidence. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, available on the record, summoned the accused- petitioner for facing the trial under Section 138 of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence, available on the record, and in fact there are cuttings on the cheques in question, therefore, the benefit of doubt should be drawn in favour of the accused petitioner and in view of this the trial Court ought not to have summoned the accused-petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the same does not hold any water. Undisputedly, the petitioner had obtained a loan from the complainant-Bank and in discharge of his liability he had issued the cheque Crl. Revision No. 837 of 2011 (O&M) 3 which was admittedly signed by the petitioner. Though, it is the case of the petitioner that he had issued blank cheque in favour of the Bank, but it is a matter of evidence that he had issued the blank cheques or he had issued the cheques after duly filled in the amount therein. It is also not the denying fact that the cheques in question bears the signature of the petitioner which on presentation in the Bank was dishonoured by the bankers of the petitioner. The learned trial Court after going through the statement of CW1 Rajiv Pathak as well as relying upon the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Pollution Board versus Mohan Meekan 2000 (2) RCR 421 and in Dy. CCI & E versus Roshan Lal aggarwal 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 110 (SC) summoned the accused-petitioner. From the perusal of record, prima facie, it appears that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused-petitioner for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act and the opinion of the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge April 7, 2011 Anand