LAL MOHAMMAD S/O SHRI MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM FAKEER, B/C MUSALMAN, R/O WARD NO.29, JHUNJHUNU, P.S. KOTWALI, JHUNJHUNU, DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU Vs. SHUSHIL KUMAR S/O SHRI GHIRDHARI LAL, B/C JAT, R/O 4/124 HOUSING BOARD JHUNJHUNU, P. S. KOTWALI, JHUNJHUNU, DISTRICT JHUNJHUNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The accused-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Sec. 397 readwith Sec. 401 Crimial P.C. against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Appeal No.49/2015 whereby the learned Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Sec. 374 Crimial P.C. affirmed and upheld the judgment and order dated 24.4.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Case No.496/2012 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also imposed fine of Rs.1,27,000.00. It was further directed that if the fine is deposited by the petitioner an amount of Rs.1,25,000.00 would be paid to the respondent-complainant as compensation. It was also directed that in default of payment of fine, petitioner will further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.

(3.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that complaint for the offence under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act was filed by the respondent-complainant against the petitioner with the averment that petitioner obtained Rs.1 lac from him on 25.12.2011 as loan and to ensure repayment thereof he issued Cheque No.378112 of Induslnd Bank. It was further averred that when the cheque in question was presented by the respondent in his bank for encashment the same was dishonored by the reason that the petitioner has already closed his account on 26.8.2010. It was also averred that respondent sent a notice through his lawyer on 13.2.2012 with a demand to make payment of the aforesaid amount, but the petitioner failed to pay the same despite notice was received by him. In support of his case, respondent produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas petitioner in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. denied the allegation levelled against him and in defence he examined himself and produced Shri Yakub as a witness. Learned trial Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the evidence made available on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner as already stated and appeal filed by him also stood dismissed.