RAJESH KUMAR Vs. NISHANT ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C, lays challenge to judgment dtd. 19/11/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Cr. Appeal No. 29-P/X/15, affirming judgment of conviction dtd. 31/8/2015 and order of sentence dtd. 1/9/2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate , Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.190-III/2014, whereby learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation of Rs.1,75,000.00 to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant-).

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) instituted a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short Act) in the competent court of law, alleging therein that vide agreement dtd. 10/12/2010, accused had sold Indica car bearing registration No. HP-01-D-0572 for consideration of Rs.1,50,000.00 and it was mentioned in agreement of sale that payment of Shri Ram Financier Branch Office, Delhi will be sole responsibility of the accused. Complainant alleged that he further sold vehicle to Sh. Anil Kumar for a sum of Rs.50,000.00 on 26/3/2011 but after few days Shri Ram Financier took away the car from Anil Kumar as amount due in its favour was not paid. Complainant on the complaint of Anil Kumar, had to return sum of Rs.50,000.00 to him, which was paid through cheque No.942321 dtd. 4/4/2011 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce. To discharge his liability, accused issued cheque No.813185, dtd. 4/4/2011 in the sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Kandbari. However, same on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Since, the accused despite having received notice, failed to make the payment good, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act in the competent court of law.

(3.) Learned trial court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.