BABLI CHAUHAN Vs. MAHINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision petition filed under S.397 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 13.3.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 110-S/10 of 2011 affirming judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.10.2011 recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, District Shimla, in Case No. 1423-3 of 10/09 titled M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited vs. Smt. Babli Chauhan, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, accused ) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereafter, Act ), convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, complainant ).

(2.) Facts, as emerge from the record are that the complainant instituted a complaint under S.138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, alleging therein that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,64,000/- from the complainant on 27.7.2005, vide loan agreement No. 332035, for the purchase of Mahindra Mini Bus. Loan amount was agreed to be repaid alongwith financial charges by the accused in 60 monthly installments of Rs.8,550/-, but the accused defaulted in repayment of loan, whereafter cheque bearing No. 617502 dated 2.6.2009, amounting to Rs.2,92,760/- came to be issued in favour of the complainant by the accused, in discharge of her debt drawn on an account maintained by her with the State Bank of India, Kholighat, District Shimla. However, the fact remains that the said cheque (Ext. CW-1/C) came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Immediately, after receipt of return memo from the Bank, complainant served the accused with statutory notice, calling upon her to make good the payment within the stipulated period but since the accused failed to make good the payment within the stipulated period as prescribed in the notice, complainant approached learned trial Court in the proceedings filed under S.138 of the Act. Learned trial Court, in the totality of evidence led on record by respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced her, as per description given herein above.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, who vide judgment dated 13.3.2015, dismissed the appeal, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein her acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Courts below.