DARBAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.8.2008 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Ujjain in Cr. A. No. 39/08 whereby the judgment dated 15.1.2008 passed by ASJ, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 1255/07 whereby the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as an "Act") for a period of one year RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default in payment of fine further RI for a period of one month and payment of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation, was confirmed, present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case arc that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court under Section 138 of the Act on 11.2.2007 alleging that the petitioner was in good terms with respondent No. 2 and because of good terms respondent No. 2 lent a sum of Rs. 55,000/- in cash to the petitioner. It was alleged that after receipt of money petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 108084 of Rs. 55,000/- dated 23.12.2006 of Vikramaditya Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit Ltd., Branch Pahidpur, Ujjain. It was alleged that the cheque was presented by the respondent No. 2 through its Banker Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Dabripitha, Ujjain which was returned with endorsement "insufficient funds". Further case of respondent No. 2 was that notice for demand was issued on 5.1.2006 which was duly served on the petitioner on 5.1.2007, but in spite of notice neither the amount was paid nor the notice was replied, thus the petitioner has committed an offence which is punishable under Section 138 of the Act. It was prayed that after taking cognizance of the offence and also after issuance of notice to the petitioner, petitioner be convicted for the alleged offence. After taking cognizance of the offence, charge was framed and after recording of evidence petitioner was convicted as stated above. In appeal conviction was maintained, hence this petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the respondent No. 2 was the holder of cheque was in a Negotiable Instrument. It is submitted that burden to prove that no transaction was taken place was on the petitioner, but petitioner failed to prove his case. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Courts below has rightly convicted the petitioner. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is limited, hence no interference can be made. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.