CRR No.444 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.444 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.02.2011 Babu Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Accused has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambala Cantt, as well as order dated 10.2.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, thereby allowing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and further to pay Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation. Complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the allegation inter alia that accused is complainant's wife's sister's daughter's husband, therefore, complainant used to treat the accused as his son-in-law; accused was constructing a house and was in need of money for completion of construction work, CRR No.444 of 2011 (O&M) -2- consequently accused had approached the complainant to advance a lone of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was given by the complainant to the accused. In discharge of this debt, accused had issued cheque No.0526333 dated 28.6.2007 for Rs.3,000,00/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Ambala; cheque was presented through Punjab National Bank, Jalbera Branch on 28.6.2007; cheque was dis-honoured on 29.6.2007 with the remarks “funds insufficient in the account of the drawee”; complainant issued notice dated 6.7.2007 to the accused demanding the payment, however, no payment was made within the statutory period even after service of notice. Complainant in order to prove his case had examined Satish Kumar – Computer Operator as CW1, H.C. Walia – Deputy Manager as CW2, and himself as CW3, and has proved on record cheque, memo, legal notice, postal receipts, statement of account, cheque book register. The defence taken by the accused was that he had kept the cheque signed by him in his shop, which was taken away by the son of the complainant. Accused has not denied his signatures on the cheque rather admitted that cheque is signed by him. On being asked, as to whether any reply notice to the statutory notice issued by the complainant was sent by the accused and in the reply case was taken that duly signed cheque was kept in the shop and was stolen by the son of the complainant, learned counsel for the petitioner, having read reply notice, stated that no such case was taken in the reply notice. Had version of the revisionist/accused been correct he would have taken plea of stolen cheque in the reply notice. It shows that CRR No.444 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the story, that signed cheque was stolen by the son of the complainant from the shop of the accused, seems to be afterthought and concocted. Moreover, no report/complaint was ever filed against the son of the complainant that he has stolen the signed cheque from the shop of the accused. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked only when a good piece of evidence is escaped from the notice of the Court or Court below has committed manifest error of law or jurisdictional error resulting in vitiation of the trial. In the opinion of this Court, no evidence or material was overlooked or left by both the Courts below while convicting the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No contrary view is possible to be taken. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge February 22, 2011 R.S.