PREM SINGH Vs. SANJEEV BHAPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C, lays challenge to judgment dtd. 7/10/2020, passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.41-R/10 of 2018, titled Sh. Prem Singh vs. Sh. Sanjeev Bhapta, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 14/11/2018, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, in Case No. 168-3 of 2018, whereby learned court below while holding the petitioner/accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') guilty of having committed 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 one year and pay fine of Rs.2,50,000.00 to the complainant in lieu of dishonoured cheques.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant) instituted complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, alleging therein that during apple season of 2017, he had taken orchard of Nank Chand, son of late Sh. Chet Ram, on contract basis and he had suppled empty apple boxes to the accused and also packed the same after grading of apples. Complainant alleged that he packed 1400 apple boxes belonging to the accused @ Rs.155.00 per box including charges of material as well as packaging. Complainant alleged that in addition to above, amount of Rs.4,000.00 was spent for lifting material from Shallan to Mandharli. With a view to discharge his liability, accused issued cheque No. 045265, dtd. 5/1/2018, amounting to Rs.2,21000.00 drawn on State Bank of India, Pujarli, however, fact remains that on presentation, aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the saving account of accused. Since despite having received statutory demand notice, accused failed to make the payment good, complainant had no option, but to file proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act.

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