SATYA PAL DHAWAN Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking setting aside of judgment dtd. 12/9/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, (East), Karkardooma, Delhi whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 38/2018 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) In the present case, the petitioner vide judgment dtd. 9/3/2018 was convicted for offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act") by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi ("learned MM") in CC No. 52659/2016 titled "Anil Kumar vs. Satya Pal Dhawan". Further, vide order on sentence dtd. 13/9/2018, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.2,60,000.00 out of which, Rs.2,40,000.00 is payable to the complainant as compensation and remaining amount of Rs.20,000.00 is to be deposited with State by the convict and in default of payment of same, convict will suffer further simple imprisonment of two months.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case as per the case of complainant are that the complainant used to have friendly relation with the accused/petitioner and the accused had requested to arrange a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 as friendly loan since he was in dire need of money. Accordingly, the complainant had advanced a friendly loan of the said amount in cash to the accused. It was also alleged that the accused in order to discharge his liability towards the complainant had issued cheque bearing no. 894375 dtd. 10/10/2011 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000.00. When the complainant had presented the said cheque, it had been returned dishonoured with remark "funds insufficient" vide cheque return memo dtd. 13/1/2012. The complainant had then conveyed the same to the petitioner vide legal demand notice dtd. 10/2/2012. The accused had failed to pay the demanded amount within stipulated period despite service of statutory demand notice. Thereafter, the complainant had filed the present complaint case before the learned MM.