KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 25/8/2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 17/5/2017 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout 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 petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 from respondent no. 2-complainant and in order to discharge this debt, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing no. 078727 dtd. 23/7/2014, amounting to Rs.2,00,000.00 drawn upon Punjab and Sindh Bank, Branch Malout, in favour of respondent no. 2. Accordingly, respondent no. 2 deposited the above said cheque with her bank for encashment of the same. However, vide memo dtd. 25/7/2014, the above said cheque was returned unpaid with the remark, 'Funds Insufficient'. Subsequently, this was brought to the notice of the petitioner and a legal notice dtd. 6/8/2014 was sent to the petitioner through registered post. The petitioner failed to pay the amount. Respondent no. 2 then filed a complaint for proceeding against the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the NI Act.

(3.) Upon presentation of the complaint in the trial Court, the petitioner was summoned vide order dtd. 27/8/2014. Once the presence of the petitioner was secured, notice of accusation under Sec. 138 of the NI Act was served upon the petitioner to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Respondent no. 2 appeared as the sole witness and tendered various documents as evidence to substantiate her complaint. Subsequently, the statement of the petitioner under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein the petitioner pleaded false implication, and examined one witness in his defence Thereafter, numerous opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead and conclude defence evidence, but the petitioner failed to do so. As a result, the defence evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court's order.