GIAN CHAND Vs. HARISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, dated 1.9.2016, in Cr. Appeal No. 12 of 2016, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, dated 18.2.2016, in Case No. 14 of 2012, under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vide which, petitioner-accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant, has been dismissed and the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, dated 18.2.2016, has been upheld.

(2.) Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that in the 1st week of Aug., 2012, the petitioner-accused borrowed Rs. 50,000.00 from the complainant to discharge his liability towards the complainant, the accused gave a post dated cheque bearing No.697837, dated 1.9.2012, amounting to Rs. 50,000.00 of Indian Bank, Mandi, to be encashed out of his bank Account No.916443761. On 25.9.2012, the respondent-complainant presented the said cheque to the banker of the accused, but the same was dishonoured for "Insufficient Funds" in the account of accused and was returned back to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice, dated 9.10.2012 to the accused through registered post through his counsel, but the accused neither responded to the said notice nor paid the cheque amount to the complainant. While giving the cheque in question to the complainant, the accused was fully aware and in the knowledge that he was not having sufficient funds in his bank account for encashment of the said cheque nor he had made any arrangement for encashment of the cheque and thereby the accused defrauded, deceived and cheated the complainant. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused has argued that as the amount in question has been paid to the complainant and the complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused, vide compromise deed, placed on the file, the offence be compounded and the petitioner be acquitted of the offence, he was convicted.