SUSHANT SOOD Vs. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 24/1/2020 passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate Class Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay compensation double to the cheque amount i.e Rs.32,00,000.00. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned judgment dtd. 12/7/2024 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) The complaint was initially filed by Vineet Vermani, respondent No.2/complainant before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh on 24/10/2017 by alleging that he and the petitioner/accused were childhood friends, since their fathers were also having family relations for the last 20/22 years. The respondent No.2 used to treat the father of the petitioner next to his own father, who had left for heavenly abode in June 2001. In June 2013, the petitioner and his father contacted him for financial help in order to meet some financial crisis. They told respondent No.2 that father of petitioner had purchased many properties in Dhakoli (Zirakpur) in the name of his trusted friend Deepak Rai. However, Deepak Rai had gone missing and his family members involved his father in false litigation. Taking into consideration their financial hardship, the respondent No.2 agreed to help the petitioner and on 4/6/2013, the respondent No.2 gave a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 in cash, on 10/6/2013, he gave a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00 through cheque, on 20/6/2013, an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 in cash and on 16/7/2013, an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00in cash i.e. total Rs.14,00,000.00 were given to the petitioner. In the month of March 2014, the petitioner and his father again contacted the respondent No.2 and requested for giving another sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 which was required for settlement of some dispute. The respondent No.2 again paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 on 3/4/2014 in cash, Rs.2,00,000.00 on 30/9/2014 in cash, Rs.1,50,000.00 on 26/11/2014 in cash, Rs.50,000.00 on 16/12/2014 in cash, Rs.2,00,000.00on 5/5/2015 in cash and Rs.2,00,000.00 on 29/7/2015 through cheque. After two years, the respondent No.2 asked the petitioner to return his money, but he kept lingering on the matter on the one pretext or the other till June 2017. On 6/6/2017, complainant along with his friend Harinder Goyal visited the office of the petitioner and at his instance, the petitioner gave an undertaking to pay a sum of Rs.23,00,000.00 and handed over four cheques i.e cheque No.016475, dtd. 5/8/2017 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 cheque No.735136 dtd. 21/8/2017 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000.00, cheque No.082948 dtd. 21/8/2017 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 and cheque No.082949 dtd. 21/8/2017 for an amount of Rs.15,00,000.00respectively in order to discharge his liability. He further assured the respondent No.2 that on presentation the cheque would be honoured and the respondent No.2 presented cheque No.016475 for encashment, but the same was returned with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". The respondent No.2 intimated the petitioner, he assured to present all cheques on 21/8/2017. On his assurance, the respondent No.2 presented all cheques for encashment, but the same were returned vide the memos dtd. 24/8/2017, 21/8/2017,24/8/2017 and 22/8/2017 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". The respondent No.2 issued legal notice dtd. 4/9/2017 and 9/9/2017, but still the petitioner did not make the payment. Ultimately, the respondent had to filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh.

(3.) After the filing of the complaint, the preliminary evidence was led by respondent No.2 and the petitioner was summoned to face trial under Sec. 138 of the Act.