Balraj Kumar v. Daljit Singh

Judgment

4. Daljit Singh son of Sh. Gurdev Singh, r/o village Kaunke Kalan, Tehsil Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana. Baljit Singh c/o Jit Singh s/o Harcharan Singh, r/o 75, Mohalla Sant Nagar, Opposite Jhansi Rani Chowk, Jagraon. Pritam Singh s/o Inder Singh r/o Kothe Sher Jang, Tehsil Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana. Friends Engineering Industries, Sidhwan Bet, Dharmkot Road, village Malsiah Bajan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER ...Respondents Present: Mr. J.S. Sathi, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement dated 11.03.2010, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which, it dismissed the appeal, against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.02.05, rendered by the Criminal Revision No. 1035 of 2010 2 Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, recording conviction of the accused (revision-petitioner), for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only), and awarding him rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 01 year, and, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 03 months. The remaining accused were acquitted.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, the accused, in order to discharge their legally enforceable liability, issued cheque No. 995581 dated 17.07.97, in the sum of Rs. 2,04,000/-, in favour of the complainant. However, on 19.09.97, when the complainant, presented the cheque, for encashment, before the Indian Overseas Bank, Jagraon, the same was dishonoured, and, sent back with a memo, to the Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Jagraon, with the remarks 'not arranged for'. Consequently, on account of the aforesaid reason, the State Bank of Patiala, Jagraon, debited an amount of Rs. 267/-, from the account of the complainant. Thereafter, on 30.09.97, the complainant, sent a legal notice, to the accused, calling upon them, to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque, within a period of 15 days, but to no avail. Ultimately, left with no alternative, the complaint, was filed.

3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court, summoned the accused, to face trial, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

4. On their appearance, in the Court, notice containing the Criminal Revision No. 1035 of 2010 3 sum and substance of the accusations, was served upon the accused, which was read-over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

5. The complainant examined H.S. Sekhon, Special Assistant, State Bank of Patiala Branch, Jagraon (CW1), Gurdev Singh, Senior Clerk, Indian Overseas Bank, Jagraon, (CW2), and, himself appeared, as (CW3). Thereafter, he closed his evidence.

6. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. They, however, did not lead any evidence, in defence, and closed the same.

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 Balraj Kumar, appellant (now revision-petitioner), which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgement dated 11.03.2010.

9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioner.

10. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, no evidence, was led, by the complainant, to prove, that the cheque, in Criminal Revision No. 1035 of 2010 4 question, was issued, by the accused, for the discharge of legally enforceable liability. He further submitted that, no presumption, under Section 139 of the Act, could be drawn, that the cheque, issued was for the discharge of legally enforceable liability. He further submitted that, even no evidence, was produced, to prove, that the cheque, was for consideration. He further submitted that, the complainant, could not prove, that he was so financially sound, as to pay a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/-, as loan, to the revision-petitioner. He further submitted that the Courts below, did not take into consideration, these aspects of the matter, and, thus, were wrong, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. He also placed reliance, on Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2006, titled as, 'Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, decided on 11.01.08, by the Apex Court. He further submitted that the judgements of conviction and the order of sentence, being illegal, are liable to be set aside.

12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the same, were based on complete misreading or misappreciation of evidence. In the instant case, the Courts below, on correct reading and due appreciation of the evidence of H.S. Sekhon, Special Assistant, State Bank of Patiala Branch, Criminal Revision No. 1035 of 2010 5 Jagraon, CW1, Gurdev Singh, Senior Clerk, Indian Overseas Bank, Jagraon, CW2, and, Daljit Singh, complainant, CW3, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the same was cogent, convincing and reliable, to bring home the guilt to the accused. The Courts below, were also right, in holding, that cheque C4, was issued, by the accused, in favour of the complainant, and when the same, was presented, it was dishonoured. The Courts below, were also right, in holding, that the complainant was financially sound, to pay loan of Rs. 2,04,000/-, to the revision-petitioner. It was, on the basis of the evidence, that the Courts below, came to the conclusion, that cheque C4, was issued, by the revision-petitioner, under his signatures, to discharge his legally enforceable liability, and not, on the basis of any presumption, which is not available, under the provisions of Section 139 of the Act. In Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case (supra), the appellant had executed power of attorney in favour of one R.G. Bhat, as both of them were running a joint business and gave four blank cheques to him to meet the expenses of the business but, later on, R.G. Bhat, started misusing the power of attorney, and the same, was cancelled on 21.08.96. There were thus, strained relations between the parties. It was the claim of the complainant who was the brother-in-law of R.G. Bhat, that the appellant obtained loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from him on 14.06.98 and returned the same vide account payee cheque on 20.07.98, and when it was presented, the same was dishonoured. The claim of the appellant was that one of the four blank cheques, referred to above, was misused by the complainant, and the same was not issued in the discharge of Criminal Revision No. 1035 of 2010 6 legally enforceable liability. Ultimately the Apex Court, in Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case (supra) accepted the plea of the appellant, and by setting aside the orders of the Courts below, ordered his acquittal. The facts of the aforesaid case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case, as in the instant case, the complainant deposed that he advanced friendly loan to the petitioner, and to the same, the aforesaid post cheque, was issued by him. Therefore, no help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, therefrom. The judgements of conviction and the order of sentence, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed.

07.04.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE