RAM CHAND Vs. DHIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision petition filed under Ss. 397, 401 of Cr.P.C, lays challenge to judgment dtd. 21/12/2019, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No.37(51)/2019, titled Sh.Ram Chand vs. Sh. Dhian Singh, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 22/8/2019, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu, in case No. 1071-1/2015, whereby court below while holding petitioneraccused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation to the tune Rs.12,00,000.00to the complainant.

(2.) Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') instituted a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu, alleging therein that he had received compensation on account of acquisition of his house and land in the year 2015. In April, 2015, accused approached him with the request to lend him Rs.10.00 lac to run the business. Complainant alleged that he on the request of accused paid Rs.10.00 lac to the accused, who with a view to discharge his lawful liability, issued cheque Ext. CW-1/B, dtd. 27/7/2015, amounting to Rs.10.00 lac, payable at PNB, Bajaura Branch, in favour of the complainant. However, fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of 'insufficient funds' and same was returned to him vide memo dtd. 1/8/2015, i.e. Ext. CW1/C. After receipt of aforesaid memo, complainant issued legal notice Ext.CW-1/D to the accused asking him to make the payment good within a period of 15 days, but since, he failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, he was compelled to institute proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act.

(3.) Complainant in support of his complaint, examined as many as three witnesses, whereas, despite opportunity, accused failed to lead any defence, but in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, he pleaded his innocence and took plea that he had only borrowed Rs.3.00 lac from the complainant and out of which he had repaid Rs.1,70,000.00lac. He also stated that , he had given blank cheque in question to the complainant as security, which was misused by him.