HARPAL SINGH Vs. HDFC BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 25/7/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 4/1/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda in complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') was upheld. The petitioner was sentenced as under: -

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent-complainant is a banking company with one of its branches in Bathinda. It was asserted in the complaint that the petitioner-accused had availed KGC of Rs.15,90,000.00 vide account no. 01878040003586 and term loan amounting to Rs.5,00,000.00 vide account no. 80178939 from the respondent bank and agreed to repay the same in installments. In discharge of his legal liability, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing no. 159595 dtd. 31/7/2014 for a sum of Rs.9,54,000.00 drawn on HDFC Bank, in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent deposited the above said cheque for its encashment. However, vide memo dtd. 31/7/2014, the above said cheque was returned unpaid with the following remark, "Funds Insufficient". Subsequently, a legal notice dtd. 11/8/2014 was sent to the petitioner through registered post. In spite of due service of notice, the petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount. The respondent then filed a complaint for proceeding against the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the NI Act.

(3.) Notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner by the learned trial Court to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Assistant Manager of the respondent bank appeared as the sole witnessand tendered various documents as evidence to substantiate the complaint. Similarly, the petitioner appeared as the sole defence witness and submitted various exhibits as evidence to prove his innocence.