BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. PRAKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation in the sum of ' 1 lac representing the Negotiable Instrument. This order was passed on 28.4.2008. The cheque which was issued relates to the year 2006.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved with the judgment, the Petitioner appealed. The learned Appellate Court, on the evidence on record, holds that cheque Ext.CW1/A issued on the UCO Bank, Dharampur which was dishonored without any reasonable cause. The Court also considered the defence, which was put up before the learned trial Court, that no notice was issued by the complainant before filing the complaint. This was rejected by the learned Appellate Court by holding that notice Ext.CW1/E, postal receipt Ext.CW1/F and acknowledgement Ext.CW1/G amply prove the issuance of notice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

(3.) The Petitioner has now challenged this judgment in revision. On the evidence on record, I am unable to persuade myself to hold that findings of the two Courts below are against the facts on record. The stand taken by the Petitioner herein that he never issued the cheque cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there are no attending circumstances that any action was taken by him to establish that the cheque was either stolen from him or that it was forged/fabricated. This revision petition is therefore rejected.