ANIL KUMAR LUTHRA Vs. SHER PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the judgement dated 03.01.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo rigourous imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-and judgement dated 17.02.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karnal vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the revision filed by the respondents/ complainant has been accepted to the extent of modification vide which the petitioner has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-to the respondent.

(2.) AS per the facts recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge are that the complaint was filed alleging therein that the accused obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-from the complainant in the month of December, 2003 for his personal necessity and in order to repay the said loan amount the accused issued cheque No. 005521 dated 05.04.2004 to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-drawn on Central Bank of India, ASsandh, in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque dated 05.04.2004 to his Banker, Punjab and Sind Bank ASsandh for its encashment but the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 06.04.2004 with the endorsement 'account closed.' The complainant then served a legal notice upon the accused on 13.04.2004 through registered AD calling upon him to make the payment of the said cheque amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-to the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice, but in spite of service of the said registered legal notice upon the accused, he failed to make the payment of the said cheque to the complainant. 6. The solitary argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts below have erred while passing the judgements that the notice issued by the counsel for the complainant/ respondent was not time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. 7. There is no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, a finding has been duly recorded that the notice was received by the accused on 15.04.2004 and the cause of action arose on 16.04.2004. A period of 15 days lapsed on 01.05.2004. The complaint was accordingly filed on 01.06.2004 within a period one month. Thus, the complaint is well within the time. Moreover, the Appellate Court relied on the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jossy Kondody v. Chacko Thomas reported as 1999(4) RCR (criminal) 466, wherein, it was held that the first date of period of one month as well as the date on which the cause of action arose has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation of one month. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to how the calculation was incorrect or how the complaint was time barred. 9. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment of six months with further direction to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-to the respondent. Since a lenient view has already been taken while convicting and sentencing the petitioner, therefore, his sentence cannot be reduced any further. 10. There is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings and well reasoned judgements passed by both the Courts below. 11. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.