NETRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for private opposite party were heard.

(2.) THE instant criminal revision has been preferred challenging the conviction of the revisionist, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. The revisionist took his trial in complaint case no.147 of 2008, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and vide judgment and order dated 23.07.2012 he was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and also with fine of Rs.1,00,000/ - with default stipulation of three months imprisonment. Out of the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/ -, Rs.85,000/ - was to be paid to the complainant of the said case and balance amount of Rs.15,000/ - was directed to remain in the government exchequer. Feeling aggrieved thereby the present revisionist preferred criminal appeal no.244 of 2012 and Additional Sessions Judge, T.E.C.P. -4, Lucknow, vide its judgment dated 12.10.2012 partly allowed the appeal and conviction of appellant was confirmed. However, sentence of imprisonment was reduced to a period of one month only. However, in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment and out of the amount of fine the complainant was to get Rs.95,000/ -. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the Appellate Court the instant criminal revision has been preferred.

(3.) IN brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant revision are that the complainant filed a complaint with the allegation that he had given Rs.85,000/ - as loan to the revisionist for construction of his house but in spite of several demands he failed to return the said amount. Lastly, a cheque dated 15.09.2007 was given by the revisionist to the complainant which was dishonoured by the Bank for want of sufficient funds. Thereafter, the notice was served upon the revisionist which has been received by him but in spite of that the payment was not made. The case of the revisionist was that his daughter Madhubala had given some money to the complainant on the pretext that he shall make available a house for her. He had made payment of Rs.1,25,825/ - to the complainant and thereafter the complainant raised further demand of money on the pretext that circle rates have been enhanced which was fulfilled by his father (the present revisionist) by giving the complainant a cheque of Rs.85,000/ -.