AMIT ARORA Vs. AMIT CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of even date, i.e. 29.1.2015 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur as well as the impugned judgment dated 12.8.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, while upholding his conviction and sentence, convict-petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition.

(2.) Brief facts of case, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned judgment, are that Amit Chawla (respondent herein) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act" for short), for seeking prosecution of Amit Arora (petitioner herein) on the grounds that the accused-petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in cash on 13.10.2013 at Phillaur and had agreed to pay the same within two months. The cheque was presented for encashment but the same was received back with the remarks funds insufficient. He was served with legal notice directing him to make payment within prescribed time. When the accused failed to make payment, the complaint was filed under Section 138 of NI Act.

(3.) Preliminary evidence was led and the court of Ms. Preeti Sukhija, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, summoned the accused under Section 138 of NI Act. The accused did not appear earlier and was declared proclaimed offender. He subsequently appeared and surrendered before the learned trial court and the offence being bailable, was admitted to bail and thereafter notice of accusation was served and tendered his duly sworn affidavit. He also faced cross-examination. Thereafter, the evidence was closed and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr. P. C."for short), in which the incriminating facts, evidence and documents were put to the accused, in question and answer form, in which he claimed his false implication but did not lead any evidence in his defence.