HIRA NAND SHARMA Vs. MADAN LAL THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Oral)Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr. PC, is directed against the judgment dated 2.8.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge (II), Shimla, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 33-S/10 of 2014/12, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 30.8.2012 and order dated 06.9.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, H.P. in case No. 981-3 of 2011, whereby the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 6,90,000/- to the complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act "in short the Act"

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent (complainant) lodged a complaint in the Court of Judicial Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Magistrate, 1st class, Court No. III, Shimla, H.P., against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, stating therein that during the month of September, 2009, the petitioner-accused, asked for Rs. 8 lac from him for construction of house and marriage of his son. Since the accused was family friend, the complainant advanced Rs. 1 lac through cheque and Rs. 50,000/- in cash on 7.9.2009, Rs. 4 lac through cheque and Rs. 1 lac in cash on 4.11.2009 and Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash on 20.11.2009 to the accused. Petitioner accused with a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, issued three cheques amounting to Rs. 8 lacs including cheque No. 4996044 dated 5.9.2011 amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- and cheque No. 4996043 dated 05.09.2011 amounting to Rs. 5 lac, drawn at the HP State Co-operative Bank Ltd, Totu, Shimla HP, in favour of the complainant. However, fact remains that on presentation, the above numbered cheques were dis-honored on account of insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner accused. On receipt of memo dated 6.9.2011, the complainant got legal notice issued upon the petitioner accused advising him to make the payment good within 15 days. Since the petitioner failed to make the payment in terms of the aforesaid notice, he was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

(3.) The learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record held the petitioner accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him as per the description given herein above.