PARVEEN DEVI Vs. KRISHAN GOEL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I propose to dispose of six criminal revision petitions, four preferred by Parvesh Khurania i.e. CRR Nos. 2334, 2335, 2338 and 2341 of 2017 and two by Parveen Devi i.e. CRR Nos. 2300 and 2301 of 2017 as they arise out of a judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak dated 05.03.2016, whereby the petitioners herein were convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the order dated 16.03.2016 sentencing the accused i.e. Parvesh Khurania to undergo eight months of simple imprisonment, Parveen Kumar to undergo six months simple imprisonment and Parveen Devi to undergo one month simple imprisonment and also to pay 50% of the cheque amount by way of compensation to respondent No 1-complainant. On an appeal preferred by all the three convicts as well as the complainant, appeal of Parveen Kumar has been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide judgment dated 02.06.2017 as also the appeal of the complainant-Krishan Goel for enhancement of sentence by sentencing appellant-Parvesh Khurania to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10 lacs, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months while the sentence of Parveen Devi has been enhanced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10 lacs, in default whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, appeals of both the petitioners herein, namely, Parvesh Khurania and Parveen Devi were dismissed, which order has also been challenged in these revision petitions.

(2.) This Court had granted various opportunities to the petitioners . to come forward with a concrete proposal for discharge of the liability and even last opportunity was given for coming forward with a concrete proposal for an amicable settlement/compromise between the parties but no proposal has come forth on the part of the petitioners for an amicable settlement/compromise between the parties although senior counsel for respondent No. 1-complainant was always ready for the same. Finding the matter to be delayed on one pretext or the other at the behest of the petitioners, this Court called upon the counsel for the parties to address their arguments as the records of the Courts below have also been received in pursuance to an earlier order passed by this Court.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts below have proceeded on the wrong assumption that the initial onus with regard to there being any liability upon the petitioners qua the cheques in question is not sustainable as no cogent evidence has been placed on record by the respondent-complainant to substantiate the same. It is contended that the complainant has made an attempt to fasten the liability upon the petitioners claiming that an amount of Rs.80,79,861.50 paise was outstanding against the petitioners as interest upon the amount of Rs.1,36,53,067.12 paise. The cheques in question were issued as security without there being any liability of the petitioners to pay the amount to the complainant. Counsel submits that the presumption drawn under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been wrongly interpreted to be not discharged by rebuttal by the petitioners merely because no positive evidence has been led by the parties. It is contended that the documents, on which the Courts below have placed reliance, cannot be said to be substantial enough to prove the plea of the complainant and would not be termed as cogent and convincing piece of evidence to hold the petitioners guilty of having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. His submission is that as a matter of fact, five cheques amounting to Rs.10 lacs each were given to the complainant, which were to be kept with him as security. He has manipulated the figure on the cheque amount by changing digit 1 to 7 making the cheque of Rs.10 lacs as Rs.70 lacs and had presented the same and it is for this reason that the payment was stopped.