UMENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant-Revisionist Umendra Singh, instituted a criminal complaint against Anuj Kumar (respondent no. 2) in respect of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, his father dealt with in the business of brick kiln. Since the complainant was having business relations with the accused-respondent therefore, he had full faith in the latter. On 18.08.2003, accused-respondent came to the complainant and demanded Rs. 60,000/-. The complainant paid Rs. 60,000/- to the accused-respondent. On 20.09.2003, when the complainant felt the need of money, and expressed the same to the accused-respondent, the accused-respondent paid Rs. 8,000/- in cash to the complainant on 20.09.2003 and also handed over a cheque of Rs. 52,000/- on 24.09.2003 to the complainant. When the cheque was presented to the bank, the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The complainant gave a notice to the accused-respondent on 14.10.2003, which notice was received by the accused-respondent, but even then the accused did not pay the money to the complainant.

(2.) Complainant Umendra Singh again appeared before the trial court to substantiate the allegations made against the accused-respondent in the complaint. He proved the complaint story and said that while Rs. 8,000/- were received by him in cash, a cheque of Rs. 52,000/- given by the accused to him on 24.09.2003 was dishonoured. Cheque was proved as Ext. Ka-1, bank memo was proved as Ext. Ka-2, notice dated 14.10.2003 was proved as Ext. Ka-3 and postal receipts were proved as Ext. Ka-4, Ext. Ka-5 and Ext. Ka-6. Complainant Umendra Singh's evidence was corroborated by PW2 Parveen Kumar. PW2 Parveen Kumar, in his statement, supported the complainant's version and said, among other things, that when the cheque given by the accused was dishonoured, accused again promised the complainant to pay back the money. When the accused did not do so, the complainant, through his counsel, issued him a notice. Thus complaint version was fully proved on the strength of evidence of PW1 Umendra Singh and PW2 Praveen Kumar.

(3.) DW1 Dr. Himanshu Divedi was examined to say that Anuj Kumar borrowed Rs. 52,000/- from Umendra Singh and a cheque was kept with DW1 in lieu thereof. It was decided that Umendra Singh will pay the money to Anuj Kumar and when he pays the money to him, DW1 will handover the cheque to Umendra Singh. When Umendra Singh informed DW1 that he has given the money to Anuj Kumar, DW1, in presence of Subhash Gupa, handed over the cheque to Umendra Singh. When Anuj Kumar met DW1 after 3-4 days, DW1 informed him that Umendra Singh has taken back the cheque. Anuj Kumar informed DW1 that Umendra Singh did not pay him the money. The trial court did not believe the defence story. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar did not rely upon the testimony of DW1. It was held, to the contrary, that a cheque was handed over to the complainant by the accused, which cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds and therefore, accused committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was accordingly convicted of the said offence. He was sentenced to a months' imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 65,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Besides the same, the accused was also awarded a fine of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited in favour of the State of Uttarakhand.