KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present Criminal Revision is to the judgment dtd. 7/9/2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, vide which the petitioner had been convicted under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1881") and had been sentenced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_69_LAWS(P&H)1_2022_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner had taken a loan from the respondent-HDFC Bank Limited which was to be repaid alongwith the interest as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The said amount was duly received in the account of the petitioner and as on 10/8/2016, an amount of Rs.16,48,026.44 was due from the petitioner and the cheque duly signed by the complainant dtd. 22/8/2016 for an amount of Rs.14,78,000.00 was issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant bank. The said cheque was presented before the Bank and was dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dtd. 5/9/2016. Legal notice dtd. 12/9/2016 was issued by the complainant through their counsel but in spite of the same, the petitioner had failed to make the payment and thus, complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 was filed by the complainant.

(3.) The complainant-Bank had examined one Harminderpal Singh as CW1 who had fully supported the case of the complainant-Bank and had also produced on record cheque as Ex.C2, Memo dtd. 5/9/2016 as Ex.C3, Legal notice dtd. 12/9/2016 as Ex.C4 and postal receipt dtd. 12/9/2016 as Ex.C5 and also Statements of Account as Ex.C6 and Ex.C7.