SUNITA VERMA Vs. MOHAR SINGHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying criminal revision petition. Mr. Dinender Panwar, learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent states that he does not intend to file reply to the application and has no objection in case, prayer made in the application is allowed.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act, in the court of learned JMIC(6), Shimla, alleging therein that in the 1st week of January, 2015, on the request of the petitioner, he advanced sum of Rs.1,30,000.00 to her. Petitioner - accused with a view to discharge her liability issued a post dated cheque amounting to Rs.1,30,000.00, drawn at PNB, The Mall, Shimla, but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Sec. 138 of the Act.

(3.) Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 23/31/8/2018, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Sec. 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced her as per the description given herein above.