RAJENDRA MAHADEORAO CHAUDHARY Vs. GAJANAN KESHAVRAO BORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision application, the applicant (original accused) has challenged the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the two Courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicant was sentenced by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the non-applicant (original complainant) and in default of payment of such compensation, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. The Sessions Court, while dismissing appeal of the applicant, reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment of one month and maintained the other directions of the Court below.

(2.) The non-applicant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act against the applicant, alleging that a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- issued by the applicant towards consideration for registered sale deed dated 17/09/2009, executed in respect of a shop purchased in the name of wife of the applicant, had been dishonoured, due to insufficiency of funds. The non-applicant had issued notice dated 17/03/2010, in respect of dishonour of the said cheque, which was received by the applicant on 30/03/2019, and when the applicant failed to pay the cheque amount to the non-applicant within the time period specified under Section 138 of the said Act, he filed the aforesaid complaint against the applicant.

(3.) The non-applicant examined himself as witness in respect of his case while the applicant examined himself in support of his defence. The defence raised on behalf of the applicant before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, was that the aforesaid cheque had been issued as security for the price of the shop, which was in fact paid by cash to the non-applicant. It was claimed that the applicant had paid Rs.25,000/- cash on 10/09/2009 and Rs.1,00,000/- cash on 17/09/2009 to the non-applicant and the sale deed was executed on 17/09/2009. It was claimed that the cheque given by way of security to the non-applicant was misused by him and a false case was filed against the applicant.