ROHTASH ALIAS DINDAYAL ALIAS DEENAM Vs. BIRWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 8/6/2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, whereby the petitioner accused was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,80,000.00 i.e. 1.5 times of the cheque amount approximately, to the complainant (respondent No.1 herein) under Sec. 143(1) (proviso) of the Act read with Sec. 357(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') within a period of one month from the passing of the judgment by the trial Court, and the judgment dtd. 1/2/2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner-accused against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, was dismissed.

(2.) Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of the present revision petition; petitioner-accused approached Amar Singh (brother in-law of the complainant) and assured him to get employment in Sugar Mill against payment of Rs.10.00 Lakh. Said Amar Singh paid Rs.6,72,000.00 to the petitioner and agreed to pay the remaining amount at the time of issuance of appointment letter. To manage the funds, Amar Singh executed an agreement to sell his land to Kumar Pal on 29/3/2013 and another agreement with Mukhtiyar Singh (father of Kumar Pal) on 28/3/2014 without cancelling the previous agreement. The petitioner instead of getting Amar Singh employed purchased a truck bearing registration No.HR-38S-7488. The complainant arranged the money and got land of Amar Singh released from Mukhtiyar Singh after paying him Rs.6,72,000.00 with interest at the rate of 2 per cent. The complainant lodged complaint with the police and in pursuance of the compromise, the petitioner agreed to transfer the abovesaid truck in favour of the complainant on 28/10/2014. However, on 25/11/2014, the petitioner took the truck back and after paying Rs.32,000.00 in cash issued two post dated cheques for balance amount of Rs.6,40,000.00 to the complainant. Cheque No.035773 dtd. 17/12/2015 for Rs.3,20,000.00, on presentation, was returned unpaid with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" on 19/12/2015. Thereafter, petitioner issued a fresh cheque No.035774 dtd. 23/5/2016, which was also returned unpaid with the same remarks on 2/7/2016. Despite issuance of legal notice dtd. 22/6/2016, the petitioner failed to payment to the complainant. Hence, the complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act was filed by the complainant against the petitioner-accused.

(3.) During trial, learned trial Court completed various proceedings of trial including recording plea of defence under Sec. 263(g) Cr.P.C., recording statements of witnesses from both the sides. After considering the material and evidence available on record, learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty for commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Act and convicted him in the manner narrated above, vide judgment and conviction and order of sentence dtd. 8/6/2018.