SANJAY SHRIVASTAV Vs. ARUNA PURTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C., against judgment dtd. 7/12/2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 40-S/10 of 2022, whereby the judgment of conviction, dtd. 23/7/2022, and order of sentence, dtd. 1/8/2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 7, Shimla, H.P., in Case No. 119-3 of 2014, was affirmed.

(2.) The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, can succinctly be summarized as under:

(3.) One Shri Inder Dutt Sharma introduced the complainant-Smt. Aruna Purta to the accused/petitioner, who was an employee of Birla Sun Life Insurance. The accused-petitioner convinced the complainant for an insurance policy of Birla Sun Life company and in the month of January, 2011, the complainant bought the insurance policy. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner visited the complainant many times and friendly relations were developed between the complainant and the petitioner-accused. During the year 2012, the petitioner-accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000.00from the complainant, which he returned to the complainant. The petitioner-accused, in the month of November, 2013, again approached the complainant and requested her to lend Rs.2,00,000.00 for purchasing some land and he assured her to return the amount within six months. The complainant, considering the past conduct of the accused-petitioner paid him a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 in cash in November, 2013. The accused-petitioner, in order to liquidate his financial liability towards the complainant, issued cheque bearing No. 558618, dtd. 20/3/2014, drawn at Canara Bank, New Shimla, amounting to Rs.2,00,000.00. However, the said cheque, on being presented for encashment was returned back to the complainant with remarks 'funds insufficient'. Subsequently, on 28/6/2014 the complainant issued legal notice to the accused-petitioner demanding the amount, but the accused-petitioner failed to make the payment within the stipulated period, therefore, the complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the 'NI Act') before the learned Trial Court.