RANJIT SINGH Vs. SARAF ELECTRICALS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Ranjit Singh was convicted in the complaint filed by M/s Saraf Electricals Private Limited of Rampura Phul for offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short-the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two

(2.) years and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lakhs in terms of Sec. 357 Code of Criminal Procedure, failing which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The petitioner filed appeal against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence which was dismissed.

(3.) The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant company is manufacturer and distributor of transformers and carrying on Turnkey projects work of PSPCL of shifting/installing of electric meters. The accused firm M/s HSG Associates is a partnership firm consisting of partners Harinder Singh and Ranjit Singh as per partnership deed dtd. 12/6/2008, who are managing the affairs of the firm. They approached the complainant company for work of shifting and installation of electric meters within the area of Malerkotla Division. As the work of installation of electric meters had been allotted to the complainant, the contract of work of shifting and installation of electric meters in the area of Malerkotla Division was given to M/s HSG Associates under an agreement dtd. 9/11/2010, which was executed by one of the partners Harinder Singh. In furtherance of contract, he submitted 10 undated cheques bearing serial Nos. 680201 to 680210 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Dhanasu, Ludhiana of Rs.10.00 lakhs each for carrying out the contract work of shifting and installing electric meters within the area of Malerkotla Division. Complainant used to supply the material for the job to be carried out by the accused firm, who submitted bills of work done by them. They were supplied the material worth Rs.2,28,22,022.66 by the complainant and material of Rs.5,99,100.00 was supplied to them directly by the manufacturer. On 26/2/2012, accused persons were called to the factory premises of the complainant for reconciling the material supplied by the complainant and the work