JAGDAMBA PRASAD BADONI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 29.1.2003 holding the appellant guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act') and the order dated 6.2.2003 sentencing him to undergo RI for 15 days and directing him to deposit Rs.30,000/- as compensation payable to the complainant by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in complaint case No.1779/2002 Gajendra Rawat v. Jagdamba Prasad.

(2.) The case set up by the complainant (respondent No.2) before the Metropolitan Magistrate was that he had given a personal loan to the appellant (accused), who in discharge of the said liability issued a cheque on 31.12.1998 drawn on PNB, Khan Market, New Delhi of Rs.20,000/- (Ex.CW-2/1); when the cheque was sent for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient funds" vide memo dated 5.5.1999; and legal notice dated 15.5.1999 sent by the complainant to the appellant was returned bearing remarks that the appellant was not available despite several visits. After preliminary evidence, appellant was summoned and he was served with a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and he pleaded not guilty. The complainant examined himself as CW-2 and Harish Kumar, Record Clerk, Canara Bank, Delhi to prove his case. The appellant pleaded that the complainant was to supply a photostate machine and he failed to provide the same, therefore, the payment could not be made. In support of his case, the appellant examined two witnesses, DW-1 Ashok Kumar and DW-2 Desh Raj. Learned trial court after appreciating the material on record held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset argued that the appellant would not challenge the conviction and the compensation awarded to the complainant but would pray that the punishment of 15 days' RI awarded to the appellant be converted to fine only. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent does not contest the same. As per complainant's own showing the cheque for Rs.20,000/- was dishonoured on 5.5.1999; immediately after conviction, the appellant has deposited amount of Rs.30,000/- payable to the complainant-respondent No.2 as compensation u/Sec.357 Cr.P.C.; and he has already suffered the pain of trial for about 4 years. The dispute appears to have arisen out of commercial transaction.