SH. CHAMAN LAL Vs. SH. BUDHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision petition is filed under sections 397 and 401 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against judgment dated 12.05.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge Kullu (H.P.) in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2014 title Chaman Lal v. Budhi Singh whereby learned Sessions Judge Kullu dismissed the appeal of revisionist filed against judgment and sentence of learned Trial Court. On date of final hearing none appeared on behalf of revisionist. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist submitted that learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist sought many adjournments for final hearing and present case be disposed of on merits. Case listed for final hearing on 24.12.2015, 16.03.2016, 29.04.2016, 29.06.2016 and 26.09.2016. Court decided to dispose of revision petition on merits. Execution of sentence passed by learned Trial Court suspended by High Court till disposal of criminal revision petition. Brief facts of the case:

(2.) Sh. Budhi Singh complainant filed complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. There is recital in the complaint that complainant and accused are well known to each other and were having good friendly relations. There is further recital in the complaint that in the month of May 2010 revisionist was in dire need of money for construction of his house and revisionist approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs. 5 lac in presence of witnesses and assured that he would refund the amount within 3-4 months. There is further recital in the complaint that on dated 21.2.2011 complainant demanded back borrowed money from revisionist but revisionist in order to discharge his antecedent liability issued cheque No.460721 dated 21.2.2011 amounting to Rs. 5 lac in favour of complainant. There is further recital in complaint that complainant presented the cheque before the bank but the cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund. There is further recital in the complaint that demand notice was issued to revisionist but despite it revisionist did not pay the amount due. Prayer for conviction of revisionist under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 sought.

(3.) Learned Trial Court recorded preliminary evidence of complainant and thereafter learned Trial Court held that there are sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed against revisionist for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Thereafter notice was issued to revisionist by learned Trial Court. Thereafter on 5.12.2012 learned Trial Court issued notice of accusation under section 251 CrPC to revisionist for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Complainant examined two witnesses and revisionist examined one witness. Documentaries evidence also placed on record. On dated 27.11.2013 learned Trial Court convicted the revisionist under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and sentenced the convict to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Learned Trial Court also directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 6 lac to complainant. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court revisionist filed appeal before learned Sessions Judge Kullu (H.P.) and learned Sessions Judge Kullu (H.P.) dismissed the appeal filed by revisionist on dated 12.5.2015 and affirmed the judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned First Appellate Court revisionist filed the present criminal revision petition.