Crl.Revision No. 313 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 313 of 2005 Date of Decision:November 17,2010 Santokh Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S. Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Santokh Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`the Act' for short) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 5.8.2003 in a complaint filed by complainant-Sukhdev Singh-respondent No.2. Vide order of even date, petitioner-accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 138 of the Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 18.1.2005. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the appellate Court in Crl.Revision No. 313 of 2005 2 para 2 of its judgment, are reproduced here in below:- “2.Facts pleaded by the complainant before the Ld. Trial Magistrate were that accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- from him. In order to discharge his liability regarding the repayment of the aforesaid amount, he issued two post dated cheques No. 0131592 and 0752098 dt. 15.5.2001 for an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- each in favour of the complainant from his Bank account No:119 with his banker Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Ferozepur City. The said cheques were presented by presented by the complainant for encashment through his Bank namely Bank of Patiala Ferozepur City. The cheques were returned un-paid with remarks of the banker of the accused that he was not having sufficient funds in his account vide memo dt. 19.7.2001 consequent to which the complainant served notice dt. 28.7.2001 issued on 30.7.2001 calling upon the accused to make payment of amount of dishonoured cheques within a period of 15 days. The notice was received back undelivered . Hence, the complainant filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Act on 10.9.2001.” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner had borrowed Rs.2,20,000/- from him and in order to discharge the said liability, the petitioner had issued two cheques in the sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- each dated 15.5.2001. However, when the said cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned back unpaid by the Bank with the report “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, a notice was served by the complainant on Crl.Revision No. 313 of 2005 3 the petitioner to make the payment qua the cheque amount. However, the notice sent by the complainant was received back undelivered. Left with no option, complainant filed the complaint in question. In order to prove his case, the complainant himself appeared in the witness box as CW1 and examined Mahender Chhiber, official of the Bank as CW2. Petitioner took up the plea that he was running a kiryana shop and had taken some money from the complainant to purchase more articles for the shop. Two blank signed cheques had been issued by way of security. The complainant used to purchase the articles from his shop without paying the bills. However, now Rs.1000/- were due towards the petitioner. When the petitioner demanded back the money, the complainant misutilized the two cheques. However, the petitioner failed to establish the said plea. Petitioner had examined DW1 Desh Deepak Handa in support of his case but in the cross-examination, it was stated by the said witness that no transaction between the parties has taken place in his presence. In these circumstances, the testimony of DW1 fails to advance the case of the petitioner. Cheques in question are duly signed by the petitioner and, consequently, a presumption arises that they have been issued for an existing liability. There is nothing on record to rebut the said presumption. In these circumstances, the trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and the same was rightly upheld by the appellate Court. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge November 17, 2010 arya Crl.Revision No. 313 of 2005 4