Crl. Rev. No. 1613 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1613 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 27, 2011 Labh Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL Present : Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. No.39463 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Crl. Rev. No. 1613 of 2011 Labh Singh having been convicted and sentenced by both the Courts below has filed the instant revision petition. Respondent No. 2/complainant - Ashok Kumar filed criminal complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act') read with Section 420 IPC alleging that the accused had taken loan of ` 3 lacs from the complainant and issued cheque dated 26.9.2005 for the said amount. However, the cheque was dishonoured vide bank memo dated 3.10.2005 on account of insufficient funds. The complainant issued demand notice dated 19.10.2005 requiring the accused to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days. The accused received the notice on 3.11.2005 and sent reply dated 5.11.2005 but Crl. Rev. No. 1613 of 2011 2 did not make payment of the cheque amount, necessitating the filing of the complaint. After recording preliminary evidence, accused was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Act. Thereafter, evidence of the complainant was recorded. The accused was then examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.). The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The accused alleged that he had started business of brick kiln with complainant's brother-in-law Pardeep Kumar and signatures of the accused were obtained on blank cheques. The accused examined two witnesses in his defence, HC Gurmeet Singh DW-1 stated that application dated 11.2.2008 was made by accused Labh Singh. DW-2 Ramesh Inder Singh, official of office of DIG, Patiala also brought summoned record i.e. application dated 15.5.2008 moved by Labh Singh. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Patiala vide judgment and order dated 28.8.2009 convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. Appeal preferred by the accused has been dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Patiala vide judgment dated 12.7.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended Crl. Rev. No. 1613 of 2011 3 that the complaint instituted by the complainant was time barred. It was pointed out that the accused vide reply dated 5.11.2005 received by the complainant on 7.11.2005 had refused to make the payment whereas the complaint was instituted on 16.12.2005 and not within one month from the date of receipt of reply of the accused. The contention is completely meritless. It is the specific case of the complainant that demand notice was received by the petitioner on 3.11.2005 and thereafter he had 15 days time to make payment of the cheque amount as per proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Act. On expiry of said 15 days time, the complainant had one month limitation period to institute the complaint as per Section 142(b) of the Act. In the instant case, notice was served on the accused on 3.11.2005. Therefore, the accused had time till 18.11.2005 to make payment. Hence, the complaint could be instituted within one month after 18.11.2005. Consequently the complaint instituted on 16.12.2005 can not be said to be barred by limitation. Faced with the aforesaid situation, counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence on record to depict that notice was served on the accused on 3.11.2005. The contention relating to disputed question of fact can not raised for the first time in revision petition when admittedly no such contention was raised before the trial Court or the Appellate Court. On the contrary, it can not be said that there is no evidence on record to depict that notice was served on the accused on 3.11.2005. There is sworn statement of the complainant to this effect, besides postal receipt etc. With the help of said documents, it has not been depicted by petitioner's counsel that notice was not served on 3.11.2005 or was served prior Crl. Rev. No. 1613 of 2011 4 to it. In addition to the aforesaid, if the accused had taken any such plea before the trial Court, the complainant could have depicted that the complaint was filed within limitation and could also seek benefit of proviso to Section 142(b) of the Act, according to which cognizance of the complaint may be taken even after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within such period. For the reasons aforesaid, the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was time barred can not be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the cheque was not issued by the accused to the complainant. The contention can not be accepted. There is concurrent finding by both the Courts below against the accused-petitioner. The said finding can not be said to be illegal or perverse so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. On the contrary, said finding is the only reasonable view that can be taken of the evidence on record. The accused by his plea of having signed blank cheque has infact admitted the issuance of the cheque. There is, therefore, presumption under Section 118 of the Act that the cheque was issued for consideration and there is also presumption under Section 139 of the Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability referred to in Section 138 of the Act. The alleged dispute of accused with complainant's brother-in-law Pardeep Kumar does not help the accused because the instant complaint was instituted on 16.12.2005 whereas the alleged complaints by accused to the police Crl. Rev. No. 1613 of 2011 5 were made in the year 2008. Even if civil suit had been field by the accused against the brother-in-law of the complainant as submitted by counsel for the petitioner, even then it would not exonerate the petitioner of his guilt which has been proved in this case beyond reasonable doubt. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. July 27, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) reena JUDGE