RAM LAL Vs. NARAYAN DASS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four identical criminal revision petitions between the same parties, filed at the instance of the convict, are being decided together by this common order, as all these four cases are based on similar set of allegations. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CRR No. 3202 of 2015.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned appellate court in para 2 of its impugned judgment, are that the complainant and accused are real brothers and they were running a joint business and property. On 13.1.2011, a compromise was effected between them vide which they separated their business and property. As a result, the entire business had fallen to the share of accused and in lieu of taking entire business, accused issued a post date cheque in question bearing No. 0208713 dated 13.8.2011 along with three other post dated cheques dated 13.7.2011, 13.9.2011 and 13.10.2011, each amounting to Rs. 25 lacs out of his account No. 3324 maintained by him in Faridkot Bathinda Kasheytriya Gramin Bank, Branch Aulakh in favour of the respondent-complainant. The accused assured that the cheques would be honoured on presentation. As per assurance of the accused, complainant presented the cheque in question dated 13.8.2011 of Rs. 25 lacs as per the compromise, for its collection through his banker Oriental Bank of Commerce, G.T.Road, Malout, but the same was dishonoured and returned vide memo dated 24.8.2011 with remarks "Account closed". Thereafter, the complainant issued legal demand notice to the accused through his counsel on 3.9.2011 requiring him to make the payment of the cheque within 15 days from the receipt of notice but despite that, accused did not make any payment towards the cheque amount to the complainant, even after the statutory period of 15 days. Thus, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ("the NI Act' for short) was filed against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malout.

(3.) After going through the preliminary evidence produced on record by the complainant-respondent, learned trial court summoned the accused-petitioner to face the criminal trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Accused-petitioner appeared and notice of accusation was served upon him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. With a view to substantiate his allegations, complainant himself appeared in the witness box as CW- 1 and also examined Parveen Kumar as CW2, besides producing on record other relevant documentary evidence.