HIRA SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, in complaint No. 118/3 of 2019, titled as Sh. Amar Singh vs. Sh. Hira Singh, dtd. 8/11/2019, in terms whereof, learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rs. Two Lac only) to the complainant, as also judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions-II, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, District Shimla, titled as Sh. Hira Singh vs. Sh. Amar Singh, dtd. 9/7/2021 in terms whereof, the appeal preferred by the present petitioner against the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court was dismissed.

(2.) The respondent herein had filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/accused on the ground that the accused had purchased apple boxes from the complainant on 10/9/2018 and in order to discharge this liability, he had issued two cheques dtd. 1/10/2018 and 7/10/2018 respectively for an amount of Rs.1,21,000.00 and Rs.54,500.00, drawn at Punjab National Bank branch at Sarswati Nagar. When presented before the bank, said cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dtd. 21/1/2019, through registered post, to the accused, demanding the payment of the cheques amount but as the same was not done by the accused, hence the complaint.

(3.) The complaint of the complainant was allowed by the learned Trial Court by holding that the complainant had duly proved the factum of the cheques which were issued by the accused to him, having been dishonoured by the bank concerned as also the non-payment of the cheque amount after issuance of the legal notice. Learned Trial Court also held that though the accused had denied that the cheques were issued by him to the complainant in discharge of his legal liability, but neither in the course of cross examination of the complainant's witnesses nor in the course of his statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused put forth any satisfactory explanation as to how and under what circumstances, the cheques were issued by him to the complainant. Learned Trial Court also held that the contention of the accused that he had given only blank signed cheques to the complainant, which were misused by the complainant, was not substantiated by him by producing even any evidence on record.