JAI PAL Vs. PREM CHAND & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By medium of this application, the applicant has sought condonation of 63 days' delay that has crept up in filing of the petition. A perusal of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the application disclose sufficient cause, which prevented the applicant from filing the petition within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay in filing of the petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Petition be registered. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

(2.) Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant/respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') against the petitioner on the allegations that cheque No.000002 dated 18.08.2015 amounting to Rs.90,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Shilaru, Cheque No. 272032 dated 26.08.2015 amounting to Rs.50,000/- and Cheque No. 272033, dated 21.09.2015 amounting to Rs.50,000/- both drawn on UCO Bank Narkanda (Total amount Rs.1,90,000/-) handed over by the petitioner to respondent in order to discharge his liability had been dishonoured. The complaint was decided in favour of the respondent by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P. and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- to the complainant/respondent.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 04.10.2017, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P., however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 03.05.2018, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition.