MEENA BHATIA Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cr.MP(M) No.239 of 2017 Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent No.1, on the instructions, having been imparted to him by his client, Sh. Gurdial Singh, who is present in Court, stated that he has no objection in case the delay in maintaining the instant criminal revision petition is condoned. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the application as well as statement having been made by learned counsel for respondent No.1, delay of 500 days in maintaining the present petition is Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment condoned. Criminal Revision Petition be registered. Application stands disposed of.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), advanced a sum of Rs.60,000.00 to the petitioner in the month of October, 2008 and the petitioner-accused in order to discharge her liability, issued a cheque bearing No. 650320, dtd. 24/1/2009, amounting to Rs.60,000.00 drawn on Punjab National Bank Dagshai Cantt. However, fact remains that on presentation, the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on ..3..account of "insufficient balance", as a result of which, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law.

(3.) Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that the present petitioner-accused is guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced her as per the description already given supra.