RANDEEP SHARMA Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision petition filed under S.397 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 27.3.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, in Cr. Appeal No. 51-N/10 of 2018, affirming judgment/order of conviction and sentence dated 25.4.2018/27.4.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class(II) Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, in Cr. Case No. 182/2014, whereby learned Court below, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act'), convicted and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that respondent No. 1-complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') instituted a complaint under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act'') in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (II) Paonta Sahib, alleging therein that in February, 2014, accused approached him with the request that he requires a sum of Rs.1,21,000/- for the purchase of new vehicle. Since accused was known to the complainant, he advanced Rs.1,21,000/- to the accused and accused, with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque bearing No. 669306, dated 30.5.2014, amounting to Rs.1,21,000/-. However, the fact remains that the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of accused. Immediately after the receipt of memo from the Bank, complainant served accused with statutory notice, calling upon him to make good the payment within stipulated period but since he failed to do so within stipulated period as prescribed in the demand notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under S.138 of the Act. Learned trial Court, on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Act and accordingly sentenced and convicted him as per description given above.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 27.3.2019, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Court came to be upheld.