KAMAL GENERAL STORE Vs. KISHORI LAL VIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition, under Section 397, Cr. P. C. read with Section 482, Cr. P. C., is directed against the judgments of trial Magistrate and the Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge), whereby the revision petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court of an offence, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 52,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, and the amount of fine has been ordered to be paid to the respondent, as compensation, and his appeal against the said judgment has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) Facts relevant for the disposal of revision petition rnay be stated. Respondent Kishori Lal Vij, hereinafter called complainant, filed a complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, alleging that he had advanced two loans of Rs. 20,000/- each to the revision petitioner, hereinafter called accused, on 18th April, 1994 and 9th May, 1994, and on both these dates, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 20,000/-. The number of cheque issued on 18th April, 1994 was 005718 and the number of cheque issued on 9th May, 1994 was 000648. Both the cheques were drawn on Central Bank of India, Bhuntar Branch. Complainant presented the cheques to his bank, i.e. Central Bank of India, Una Branch, for collection. The same were returned to him on 23-5-1994 with a memo. "refer to drawer", meaning thereby that the accused did not have money in his account for honouring the cheques. Complainant then sent a notice on 24-5-1994 to the accused by registered post. Despite service of notice, accused did, not pay the amount of the cheques. On expiry of one month from the date of sending of the notice, complaint was filed. .

(3.) Accused took the plea that as a matter of fact complainant was posted as a Manager, Central Bank of India at Bhuntar, in the years 1991 and 1992, and that it was in the year 1991 that he had taken loan of Rs. 40,000/- from him and issued him two cheques, one in July, 1991, and the other in December, 1991, and that the dates on these two cheques had been forged by the complainant. He claimed that he had returned the loan amount of Rs. 40,000/- taken by him in the year 1991, in instalments. Initially the instalments were of Rs. 1000/- per month and later on the amount had been increased to Rs. 2000/-. He stated that he never borrowed any money from the complainant on 18-4-1994 and 9- 5-1994, as alleged by him. He claimed that as a matter of fact complainant himself wrote a letter Ext. D-l to him, on 6-4-1994, demanding the money, allegedly due to him, even though he had already repaid the entire amount of money taken as a loan in the year 1991, and that letter Ext. D-l, completely belied the complainant's allegation of his having loaned Rs. 20,000/- on 18-4- 1994 and similar amount on 9-5-1994.