Ravinder Pal Singh Nagra v. Kuldeep Singh

I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE