SHYAM LAL Vs. HEMANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present Revision Petition, petitioner challenged judgment/order dtd. 9/5/2018/14/5/2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Case No.208-I/2016, titled as Hemant Kumar Versus Sh. Shyam Lal, filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in terms whereof the petitioner was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,05,600.00 to the complainant, as also the judgment dtd. 1/1/2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2018, titled Shyam Lal Versus Hemant Kumar and another, in terms whereof the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court was dismissed.

(2.) The complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that in discharge of legal liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 105191, dtd. 16/2/2016, for an amount of Rs.96,000.00, drawn upon Union Bank of India, branch Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in favour of the complainant. When presented with his banker, the cheque was dishonoured with remarks'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a demand notice to the accused, calling upon him to make good the payment within fifteen days. Despite issuance of the notice as the amount was not made good by the accused, hence, the complaint.

(3.) Learned Trial Court allowed the complaint by holding the accused guilty of committing an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by holding that the complainant had successfully demonstrated before the Court that a cheque duly issued to him by the accused in discharge of his legal liability when presented before the bank was dishonoured for want of insufficient funds and despite a legal notice having been issued to the accused to make good the payment, he failed to do so. Learned Trial Court held that whereas the complainant had proved his case by placing all the documents on record by way of exhibits, the accused failed to lead any evidence to demonstrate that his plea that the complainant was a money lender. Learned Trial Court also held that despite opportunity having been granted to the accused he failed to lead any evidence and further, he failed to rebut the presumption attached in terms of the provisions of Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as issuance of the cheque and signature of the accused thereupon was not much in dispute.