SAMINDER SINGH Vs. GAURAV SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directed to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner is further required to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The Appellate Court, however, has been considerate enough to reduce the sentence from two years RI to one year RI.

(2.) When this revision came up for hearing before this Court, the counsel was given time to have instructions if the petitioner was prepared to return the cheque amount. The counsel, on instructions, says that the petitioner is not in a position to return the cheque amount. Counsel further contends that the petitioner is seriously sick and for that reason he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment. The petitioner has now been discharged from PGI, Chandigarh. As per the counsel, the Medical Officer has written a communication to Superintendent District Jail that the condition of the petitioner is bad as he needs permanent dialysis facility. On this ground, counsel makes a prayer for release of the petitioner on bail and further says that in case the petitioner after treatment gets well he may be able to arrange the cheque amount as well.

(3.) As per the prosecution, the petitioner was proprietor of S.P.Export, Shashtri Nagar near Red Building, Ropar. He engaged himself in business of sending persons abroad after accepting the amount. The petitioner allegedly allured the respondent for sending him to Ghana in South Africa by employing him as a Salesman. A sum of Rs.6.00 lacs was demanded. Amount of Rs.4.00 lacs was allegedly received by the petitioner. He failed to keep the promise and did not return the amount as well. The respondent also sent a legal notice and the petitioner admitted receipt of Rs.4.00 lacs from him. In discharge of that liability, he issued cheque bearing No.000728 dated 20.7.2009 for a sum of Rs.1.00 lac and another cheque bearing No.000729 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and yet another cheque No.000730 dated 21.7.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the respondent. These cheques when presented for encashment, were dishonoured and returned with the remarks "account closed". For this, the petitioner was prosecuted and has now been convicted.