LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-211

GAURAV Vs. INDIAN BANK

Decided On April 26, 2016
GAURAV Appellant
V/S
INDIAN BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of conviction dated 31.01.2015 and order on sentence dated 21.02.2015, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, thereby sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation of Rs.5,50,000 to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation, the petitioner was also ordered to undergo further imprisonment of one month. Against the said orders of conviction and sentence, the petitioner had preferred revision petition being CR No.11/15 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi which was dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2015, upholding the judgment and order on sentence passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that the respondent - bank had filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had issued the cheque No.294410 dated 13.04.2011 in the sum of Rs.3,90,000/ - in the name of the bank towards repayment of loan taken by him from the bank on 13.10.2010 vide a loan agreement of even date. Since the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured by the banker of the petitioner for the reason 'funds insufficient ' vide return Advice dated 23.04.2011, the bank served a legal demand notice dated 10.05.2011 upon the petitioner, which did not evoke any response from the petitioner and hence the complaint was filed.

(3.) Trial commenced, evidence on behalf of both the sides were recorded and ultimately the trial concluded and the petitioner was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and thus he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and the petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/ - and in default of payment of compensation, the petitioner was directed to undergo further imprisonment for one month.