LAWS(CHH)-2024-1-93

MANJEET SINGH DHILLAN S/O DARSHAN SINGH DHILLAN Vs. BALJINDER SINGH RAJPAL S/O LATE AVATAR SINGH RAJPAL

Decided On January 18, 2024
Manjeet Singh Dhillan S/O Darshan Singh Dhillan Appellant
V/S
Baljinder Singh Rajpal S/O Late Avatar Singh Rajpal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is filed against the judgment dtd. 29/9/2015 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Atrocities), Korba, in Cr.A.No.01/15, which is arising out of judgment dtd. 26/12/2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, in Cr.Case No.1735/12.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that a complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 Baljinder Singh Rajpal against the applicant Manjeet Singh Dhillan, alleging, inter alia, that since both of them were known to each other, on the request of the applicant the complainant gave an amount of Rs.3.00 lacs on 26/3/2011 towards loan and for which the post dated cheque bearing No.822543 dtd. 26/3/2012 was given to the respondent No.1. After one year when the cheque was presented on 3/4/2012 it got dishonoured on 6/4/2012. The said fact was informed to the applicant. Again on the advise of the applicant, the cheque was presented before the Bank on 15/5/2012, but it was again dishonoured on 18/5/2012. Again it was presented on 15/6/2012, which was got dishonoured on 18/6/2012. Thereafter, the complainant sent a notice to the applicant on 28/6/2012, but the said notice returned back on 29/6/2012 with an endorsement that the 'doors are closed '. Consequently, the complaint case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act ') was filed. Both the parties adduced their evidence before the Judicial Magistrate. On conclusion of trial, the Court below convicted the applicant under Sec. 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months and also directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs.3.50 lacs as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by such judgment, the applicant filed the criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, who, in turn, by the impugned judgment, maintained the judgment rendered by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. Thus, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the cheque was initially deposited on 3/4/2012 and having been dishonoured for the first time the cause of action arose. He would further submit that though the legal notice was issued, but the same was not served upon the applicant with an endorsement that the doors are closed and as per Sec. 138 and 142 of the Act the notice is duly required to be served.