MANOHAR LAL Vs. DESH RAJ WADHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manohar Lal, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "accused"), by way of above mentioned three revision petitions, challenges the judgment dated 17.7.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide which the conviction of the accused for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act") recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat in three complaints vide judgments dated 29.2.2012/3.3.2012, has been upheld and apart from setting aside the sentence of fine, the sentence of imprisonment and the order under section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. for payment of compensation to the complainant by the accused have been maintained. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, I propose to dispose of the three petitions by this common order. For facility of reference, the facts mentioned in Criminal Revision No. 3285 of 2012, on which Desh Raj Wadwa (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") launched proceedings under section 138 of the Act against Manohar Lal, the accused, are being taken, which are as under:-

(2.) The accused obtained a loan in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant on 7.2.2004 for use in the business after executing a receipt in presence of the witnesses. In discharge of the said liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.540299 dated 6.4.2005 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. in favour of the complainant drawn on Post Office Saving Bank, Sonepat. The complainant was maintaining account with Bank of Baroda, Sonepat and he had presented the cheque given to him by the accused to his bank for realization. The said cheque was returned dishonoured by his banker vide memo dated 19.8.2005 with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement/Insufficient Funds". He had presented the cheque again for collection and again, the same was returned with the aforesaid remarks vide memo dated 27.9.2005. The complainant then issued a notice of demand dated 15.10.2005 to the accused at his Model Town, Sonepat address as well as through Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat as he had been in judicial custody at that time. The accused did not pay any amount towards the discharge of the aforesaid liability.

(3.) After taking preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned to stand trial for the aforesaid offence. Thereafter, notice of accusation was served upon him on 13.2.2007 and taking evidence of the complainant, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he had denied the truth of the evidence coming on record against him.