RAKESH AWASTHI Vs. VEENA LANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment, dated 6.7.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(III), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 478/2013, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.3.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., in criminal complaint No. 42-III/10, whereby learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act ( for short 'Act') in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., alleging therein that she leased out a Hotel in favour of the accused on a monthly rent of Rs. 60,800/- and accused with a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, issued cheque No.309877, dated 10.1.2010, amounting to Rs. 60,800/-. However, fact remains that aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" in the account of the accused. Immediately after receipt of the memo from the bank concerned, complainant served accused with statutory demand notice calling upon him to make the payment good within the period prescribed in the legal notice, but since accused failed to make good the payment within stipulated period, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act.

(3.) Learned trial Court on the basis of the totality of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act vide judgment dated 15.3.2012 and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as per the description given hereinabove.