SOM NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILED in this petition is the judgment dated 18.10.1994 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 03.08.1994 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Patiala convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

(2.) THE facts essential for the disposal of the present petition are that Rajpat Yadav(hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') was employed in the Escorts Private Ltd (Bahadurgarh) and was power of attorney holder of Avodh Narain, Chander Mohan, Puran Singh, Gurdev Singh, Niranjan Singh, Kirpal Singh and Rameshwar Parshad. In the month of Jan 1989, the petitioner claiming himself to be the agent of Uday Savings and General Investment Ltd. Regd. No. 1559, Sector 18 D, Chandigarh approached the complainant to invest some amount in his company for which he was ready to pay handsome interest with an insurance cover. He also assured that he will be liable against the loss in case company goes missing or its whereabouts are not known. After making the aforesaid assurance, the respondent Rajpat Yadav paid a sum of Rs. 70,000/- but later on he came to know that the petitioner had not deposited the said amount with the company. His request to return the amount fell to deaf ears. On persistent demands, petitioner handed over cheques No.0088707 and No.0088706 dated 31.01.1991 and 10.02.1991 respectively but on tendering the cheque with the drawee Bank, the same were returned with the remarks "Payment Stopped By Drawer" The said reports were followed by a notice dated 27.02.1991 but to no response. Hence a complaint was filed.

(3.) THE issuance of the cheques have not been denied by the petitioner but in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C, he submitted that the cheques were obtained from him by use of force and under undue influence for which he had lodged a complaint with the police. Besides the statement made by the petitioner, ample evidence has been brought on record to prove the issuance of the cheque as well as dishonouring of the same. Power of attorney in the name of the complainant Exhibit P4 has been duly proved. The payment of loan advanced by the complainant attorney has also been established.