AJAY SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 10th December, 2010 passed by learned District Judge (East)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge upholding the judgment dated 9th December, 2000 and order in sentence dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the Petitioner for offences punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act').

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned judgment is based upon conjunctures and surmises. Learned Appellate Court and learned Trial Court without appreciating the factual matrix of the case have convicted the Petitioner. Learned Courts have ignored the fact that the loan amount alleged to be given by the Respondent to the Petitioner was without any documentation or any written agreement. It is also an admitted position that the said loan was rendered to the Petitioner without any interest and making any person witness thereof. This creates a doubt upon the contention of the Respondent. It is stated that the Respondent herein is a Government servant drawing a salary of Rs. 6000-7000 per month and such a low salaried employee cannot arrange a huge amount to render loan to anyone. Learned Appellant Court as well as the learned Trial Court have erred in not appreciating the deposition of the Petitioner himself and the DW1 & DW2 pertaining to the cheque bearing No. 195964 wherein all of them have stated that the aforesaid cheque in question was handed over signed and blank by the Petitioner to the Respondent to secure the payment of his share in the society namely "Aapsi Sahayata Samiti" because he had left for his native village in the month of October.

(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the Respondent states that there is no ground for this Court to interfere in the impugned judgment. There is no error as pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondent. CW1 Jaipal Singh has stated that he has given amount of Rs. 1,60,000 in cash after taking a loan of Rs.1,00,000 from the bank and has also produced his passbook showing withdrawal of Rs.90,000. Thus, a clear case is made out against the Petitioner herein and Learned Trial Judge as well as Learned Appellate Court have correctly come to the conclusion that was a case of issuance of post-dated cheques towards the security and repayment of the loan amount. Further dishonouring of the said cheque in question has been proved. Thus, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.