SURESH KUMAR Vs. JAGVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, Circuit Court Barsar in Cr. Appeal No. 6/11 RBT 4/13, 05/14 dated 23.3.2015 vide which, learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Barsar, Distt. Hamirpur in Complaint No. 153-I-2009 dated 8.12.2010/14.12.2010, whereby learned trial Court had convicted the present petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') and had sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,05,000.00.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that a complaint was filed by the present respondent (complainant) against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was his friend and had desired to start business of potatoes and onions at Chandigarh and for this purpose petitioner needed some money, therefore, he approached the complainant in the month of April, 2009 for advance on credit basis and assured him to return the same as early as possible. According to the complainant, he advanced an amount of Rs. 85,000.00 to the petitioner on 29.4.2009 but he (petitioner) failed to return the said amount to him. Further as per complainant, he approached the petitioner in the month of July, 2009 for repayment of the same and petitioner issued cheque bearing No. 982802 dated 18.7.2009 for an amount of Rs. 85,000.00 drawn at State Bank of India, Chakmoh Branch to him, however, when complainant presented the said cheque for its being honoured with his banker i.e., State Bank of India Chakmoh on 17.9.2009, the same was returned unpaid due to 'insufficient funds' in the account of the petitioner. Following this as per the complainant, he issued legal notice to the accused on 30.9.2009, however, despite this petitioner did not discharge his liability towards the complainant forcing him to file complaint under Sec. 138 of the NI Act.

(3.) In order to prove its case complainant examined himself as well as one more witness, whereas the petitioner despite opportunity granted to him failed to lead any evidence.