RAJINDER PRASAD Vs. STATE OF DELHI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred as Cr.P.C.) against judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) was upheld. Vide judgment dated 26.02.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and vide order on sentence dated 16.03.2016, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay the compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant. In default of payment of compensation, the petitioner would further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The facts in brief are that a complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent no.2 against the accused/petitioner with the allegations that both of them were friends. The petitioner approached the respondent no.2 in December, 2008 for a friendly loan of Rs.1.5 lacs. The respondent no.2 advanced the loan of Rs.1.5 lacs to the petitioners on 25.12.2008. The petitioner signed a promissory note on 25.12.2008. To repay the loan amount, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.463757 dated 26.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks "account closed". The respondent no.2 sent a legal notice dated 28.02.2011 to the petitioner. Hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) The complainant/respondent no.2 examined himself to prove his case. The complainant was cross-examined by the petitioner. Opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce his defence evidence, but despite the same no defence evidence was led by the petitioner. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 26.02.2016 convicted the petitioner and passed the order on sentence on 16.03.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Court below vide judgment dated 20.05.2016. Feeling aggrieved of the orders passed by the Courts below, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner.