Criminal Revision No. 3029 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 3029 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 Ravinder Pal Singh Nagra s/o Sh. Ujjagar Singh, r/o H. No. 1301, Street No. 5, New Canal, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana. Second address:- c/o Nagra Taxi Service, Booth No. 50/60, near ITI, Gill Road, Ludhiana. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Jarnail Singh, r/o H. No. 4085, Block No. 21, Opposite ITI, Gill Road, Ludhiana. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. R.L. Luthra, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.05.07, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, vide which, it convicted the accused (now revision-petitioner), for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only), and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 01 year, and, to pay a Criminal Revision No. 3029 of 2009 2 fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 15 days, and the judgement dated 06.11.09, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. With a view to discharge the legally enforceable liability, a cheque, bearing No. 462346, in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, GNE College, Gill Road, Ludhiana, was issued, by the accused/revision-petitioner, in favour of the complainant/respondent. When the cheque, was presented, before the bankers, vide memo dated 18.04.01, the same was received back with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. A registered notice dated 30.04.01, was served upon the accused, by the complainant, but neither reply, was sent, to the notice, nor the payment was made. Ultimately, a criminal complaint was filed. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court, came to the conclusion, that there were sufficient grounds, to summon the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Accordingly, he was summoned. 4. On his appearance, in the Court, notice under Section 138 of the Act, containing the sum and substance of the complaint, was served upon the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The complainant, in support of his case, examined Rajinder Singh, Clerk, Vijaya Bank, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana (CW1), Gurcharan Singh, Special Assistant, Punjab and Sind Bank, GNE Criminal Revision No. 3029 of 2009 3 College, Gill Road, Ludhiana (CW3), and, himself appeared, in the witness box as (CW2). Thereafter, he closed his evidence. 6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the complainant's evidence. He pleaded false implication. He however, examined Jaspal Singh (DW1), Karam Singh (DW2), and, L.M. Anand, Chief Section Supervisor, BSNL (DW3), in his defence. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the appellant, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana, vide judgement dated 06.11.09. 9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the cheque was not issued, by the revision-petitioner, in discharge of legally enforceable liability. He further submitted that both the revision-petitioner and the complainant/respondent, were running a PCO. He further submitted that, in connection with the payment of bills, a blank cheque, was issued, by the accused. He further submitted Criminal Revision No. 3029 of 2009 4 that the cheque, was retained, by the complainant and was misused. He further submitted that, no evidence, was produced, by the complainant, to show his financial capacity, to give loan, in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, to the revision-petitioner. He further submitted that the Courts below, did not take into consideration the defence evidence, led by the revision-petitioner, as a result whereof, they fell into a grave error, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. 12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the plea, raised by the revision-petitioner, to the effect, that he gave a blank cheque, for the purpose of payment of bills, but the same was filled in, by the complainant and misused by him, was taken into consideration, by the Courts below, but the same was not found to be acceptable. He further submitted that the same was accordingly rejected. He further submitted that the cheque, was issued, by the complainant, to discharge his legally enforceable liability, and, when the same was presented, it was dishonoured. He further submitted that, since the accused, did not make payment of the amount of the dishonoured cheque, he committed the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act. He further submitted that the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld. 13. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, Criminal Revision No. 3029 of 2009 5 in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the same were the result of misreading and misappreciation of evidence or non-consideration of material piece of evidence. The Courts below, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Rajinder Singh, Clerk, Vijaya Bank, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana, CW1, Kuldip Singh, complainant, CW2, and, Gurcharan Singh, Special Assistant, Punjab and Sind Bank, GNE College, Gill Road, Ludhiana, CW3, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the cheque, in question, was issued, by the accused, in discharge of his legally enforceable liability, and not for the payment of bills of the PCO and when the same was presented, before the bankers, the same, was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The Courts below, were also right, in holding that, when the amount of cheque, was not paid, despite issuance of a legal notice, the accused, committed the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act. These witnesses, were thoroughly cross-examined, but, nothing of the consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. They stood the test of touchstone of all probabilities. Even the defence version, set up by the accused, and the defence evidence, produced by him, was duly taken notice of, and ultimately, the Courts below, came to the conclusion, that the same was not reliable. Once, it was proved, that the cheque, was issued, in discharge of legally enforceable liability, the same was presumed to be for valid consideration, until and unless otherwise proved by the evidence. No evidence, was produced, Criminal Revision No. 3029 of 2009 6 by the accused, to prove, that the cheque, was not for valid consideration or that the complainant, had no financial capacity, to lend an amount of Rs. 2,50,000-, as loan. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Court below, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld. 14. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Revision No. 3029 of 2009, is dismissed. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.05.07, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, are upheld. If the revision-petitioner, is on bail, his bail bonds, shall stand cancelled. 15. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit compliance report, within 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgement. 02.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE