ROSHAN LAL Vs. ROOP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the learned trial Court, which judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Courts below, on the evidence on record, held that the Petitioner herein had issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 60,000/ -to discharge his existing liability. Cheque Ex.P1 presented to the bank was dishonoured without reasonable cause. The defence of the Petitioner that no amount was due, was rejected. These findings were affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. I do not find that there is any perversity either in the conclusion arrived at or in the assessment of evidence on record. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly rejected.

(3.) I am not in agreement with this contention of the learned Counsel as the Petitioner indulges in speculative litigation and gambles to see the result before the trial Court and the Appellate Court. At this stage, it is not open to the Petitioner to pray for leniency on the ground that he has complied with the judgment by paying the amount adjudged. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the sentence of imprisonment subject to the Petitioner herein depositing a sum of Rs. 80,000/ - before the learned trial Court. The amount, if any, already deposited shall be adjusted/deducted from this amount. The amount shall be deposited within four weeks from today, failing which the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and the same shall be duly and faithfully executed by the learned trial Court. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be paid to the Respondent/complainant. Petition stands disposed of.