SARDAR SINGH KAPOOR Vs. SMT. CHANDER KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 17.9.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No.112-S/10 of 2009, titled Sardar Singh Kapoor v. Smt. Chander Kanta & anr. dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.III, Shimla, District Shimla, in Case No.353-3 of 2006, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/-, to the complainant.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ?complainant?) maintained the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ?Act?) against the accused/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ?accused?) and learned trial Court sentenced the accused, as stated herein above, which judgment was affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court. As per the complainant, on 29.7.2005 accused issued a cheque bearing No.354726, drawn at Syndicate Bank, The Mall, Shimla, to the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, on account of discharge of payment of existing debt/liability payable to the complainant with the assurance at the time of issuance of the said cheque that the same on presentation would be honoured. However, when the complainant presented the said cheque on 18.8.2005, within a period of six months from the date of cheque, the same was bounced and dishonoured for the reasons ?Insufficient funds?. The intimation regarding the dishonour of said cheque was received by the complainant on 18.8.2005, as a result of which the complainant was compelled to issue a notice through his learned counsel on 24.8.2005 notifying the fact of dishonour of the cheque to the accused, which was duly received by the accused on 25.8.2005, but the accused deliberately and intentionally failed to make payment of the said cheque amount to the complainant.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.