LAWS(HPH)-2019-9-206

NATHU RAM Vs. DEVINDER SINGH

Decided On September 05, 2019
NATHU RAM Appellant
V/S
DEVINDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, which have been filed by one and same person namely Nathu Ram, same were tagged together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, facts of Cr. Revision No. 32 of 2018, shall be discussed hereinafter.

(2.) Instant criminal revision petition filed under S.397 read with S.401 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 2.8.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 23 of 2017, affirming judgment of conviction/sentence dated 6.12.2016/7.12.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Complaint No. 300- I/2013/195-1/2015 (old), 388-I/2016/13/288-III/2016/13 (new), whereby court below, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act') convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two month and to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- to the respondent, and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(3.) Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') instituted a complaint under S.138 of the Act in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that in the month of March, 2013, accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and assured to return the same within a period of one month. After expiry of said period, accused, with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- Ext. CW-1/B in favour of the complainant, however the fact remains that aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Complainant, after receipt of memo from the Bank concerned, served accused with legal notice Ext. CW-1/D, calling upon him to make good the payment within stipulated period but since the accused failed to make good the payment within the period prescribed in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under S.138 of the Act in the competent Court of law.