SUNIL DUTT Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition under Section 397 CrPC is directed against judgment dated 11.12.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (II) Shimla, camp at Rohru, in Criminal Appeal No. 6-S/10 of 2015, partly modifying the judgment dated 27.8.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, Shimla in Criminal Case No. 243-3 of 2011, whereby the learned trial Court while holding present petitioner-accused (hereafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence under punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ('Act', for short) sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and further to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant.

(2.) Brief facts, as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant, (hereafter, 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru stating therein that he was running a barber shop in the name of '4-in-one beauty parlour', near Meat Market, Rohru. On 1.9.2011, accused approached him and demanded Rs. 60,000/- as he was in dire need of money to run his mobile business. The complainant handed over Rs. 60,000/- in cash to the accused and accused agreed to return aforesaid amount within two months. In order to discharge aforesaid legal liability, accused issued a cheque bearing No. 995319 amounting to Rs. 60,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch at Rohru. Accused at the time of handing over the cheque assured that he was having sufficient funds in his bank account and cheque would be encashed on presentation in the Bank. However, on presentation, same was dishonoured on account of 'insufficient funds' in the account of the accused. Accordingly, on 17.11.2011, complainant got issued a legal notice through registered A.D. to the accused, advising him to make payment within 15 days. Since accused failed to pay the amount as demanded by way of legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, in the trial Court. Learned trial Court, on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment and to pay compensation, as described above.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction, accused filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, (II), Shimla, camp at Rohru, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 6-S/10 of 2015. Aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the first appellate Court, however, the amount of compensation was modified to Rs. 70,000/-. Hence, this petition by the accused praying for acquittal after setting aside the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below.