SUKH RAM Vs. CHAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cr.Mp (M) No. 42 of 2018.

(2.) Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the judgment dated 05.10.2017, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2016, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2016, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, HP, in Complaint No. 388- 1/2010, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,25, 000/- to the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

(3.) Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') , filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu against the accused, alleging therein that the accused entered into an agreement with the complainant to sell the land, as described in the judgment passed by the trail Court, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,60, 000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,00, 000/- as earnest money to the accused at the time of the execution of the agreement and accused agreed to execute and register the sale deed in his favour on or before 02.02010. On the said date, the complainant remained present in Tehsil Office from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m., but the accused did not turn up to perform his part of the aforesaid agreement. Subsequently, to discharge his liability, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 989660, dated 002010, amounting to Rs. 1,00, 000/-, in favour of the complainant, drawn at State Bank of Patiala. However, the fact remains that on presentation, cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" in the account of the accused. Since, the accused failed to make the payment good despite opportunity having been afforded by the complainant by way of legal notice, he was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law.