Crl.Rev.No.1145 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.1145 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.9.2010 Brij Mohan Chawla ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.SPS Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short- “the Act”) vide judgment dated 17.7.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. Vide order of the even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Hence, the present Crl.Rev.No.1145 of 2010 (O&M) 2 petition. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, are reproduced herein below:- “the complainant being Prop. of M/s Gagan Agro Chemical, Kotkapura and dealer in pesticides/ biofertilizers filed a complaint alleging that the accused used to purchase pesticides and biofertilizers from his firm on credit. The accused in discharge of his liability issued cheque Ex.P-10 dated 30.5.2005 for Rs.5,98,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Branch Ferozepur City (for short) the Canara Bank) in favour of the complainant after settling the accounts. It was presented by him for encashment in his bank State Bank of Patiala, Branch Kotkapura, but was received with the remarks “exceeds arrangement” vide memo dated 23.6.2005 issued by Canara Bank and was received by the complainant on 30.6.2005 through his banker. Consequently, he issued a registered notice dated 11.7.2005 calling upon the accused to make the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice which was received back with the report “unclaimed”. The accused did not make any payment. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference is made out. Crl.Rev.No.1145 of 2010 (O&M) 3 The trial Court in para Nos. 13 and 14 of the impugned judgment, while ordering the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act, held as under:- “This above discussed evidence was led by the complainant to prove his case. The accused has simply denied the issuance of the cheque in question and has also challenged service of legal notice upon him. In my view this simple denial of the accused is of no avail to him. Further from documents Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-15 it evident that legal notice was issued to the accused by the complainant. But the same was received back undelivered. So, it is evident that the defence plea of the accused is not probable one, which appears to be an after thought and hence, the same cannot be accused as correct. After carefully considering the above said evidence brought on record by the complainant, I have reached at the considered opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving that in order to discharge his legally enforceable liability the accused issued cheque for Rs.5,98,000/- in favour of the complainant, on 30.5.2005. On presentation before the drawee bank, this cheque was dishonoured vide memo dated 23.6.2005 Ex.P-4, with remarks 'Exceeds Arrangement”. Complainant received Crl.Rev.No.1145 of 2010 (O&M) 4 this memo as well as the cheque in question through his banker vide forwarding letter dated 30.6.2005 Ex.P-1. Thereafter he served a legal notice dated 11.7.2005 Ex.P11 upon the accused through registered post. But the accused failed to make payment of amount of the cheque within the period prescribed under the law. Thereafter, this complaint was instituted on 18.8.2005.” The reasons given by the trial Court, while ordering the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act, are sound reasons. The Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by giving good reasons. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE September 27, 2010 anita