Delhi High Court
Anil Saini vs Vikesh Kumar Singh & Anr. on 5 May, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~R-178
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: May 05, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 1581/2014
ANIL SAINI ..... Petitioner
Through: Counsel (appearance not given)
versus
VIKESH KUMAR SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harpreet Uppal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In respect of dishonour of a cheque of `3.8lacs, petitioner stands
convicted for the offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable
Instruments, 1881 by the trial court and the substantive sentence imposed
upon him is till the rising of the Court. Fine of `7,00,000/- with default
clause has been awarded to petitioner, which was challenged by him by
way of an appeal. The learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment
has upheld the conviction and the sentence awarded to the petitioner.
In this petition, petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence
awarded to him on the ground that there was no existing debt or liability.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had not disputed that the
cheque in question is not only signed by petitioner but the date thereon is
Crl. M.C.No.1581/2014 Page 1
also in the hand of petitioner. However, it is submitted that along with
the cheque in question, petitioner had lost two other cheques and a
complaint to the police was made about it and petitioner had also asked
his banker to stop payment in respect of cheque in question and other two
cheques. Thus, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the
impugned conviction of petitioner is unsustainable and the order on
sentence awarded to petitioner deserves to be quashed.
To the contrary was the submission of learned counsel for
respondent who submitted that the plea of petitioner of making a
complaint to the local police regarding loss of cheque in question does
not stand proved, as petitioner's so called application to the police does
not bear any daily diary number. Regarding petitioner informing his
banker about stop payment of cheque in question, it was submitted that it
is evident from the evidence on record that petitioner had conspired to
cheat respondent-complainant, as from the evidence on record it is amply
clear that petitioner had taken a friendly loan for a short term and had
given the cheque in question with date written thereon. It was submitted
by learned counsel for respondent that petitioner is a clever person, who
had deliberately issued instructions to his banker to stop payment in order
to cheat the petitioner. Thus, it was submitted that the conviction and
sentence awarded to petitioner is just and proper and calls for no
interference.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes
apparent that the assertion of petitioner of lodging the complaint with
police does not stand proved and merely because petitioner had asked his
banker to stop payment prior to the dishonour of cheque in question by
Crl. M.C.No.1581/2014 Page 2
itself is not sufficient to cast any grave doubt on the version of
respondent- complainant regarding issuance of cheque in question
towards a friendly loan for a short term. This appears to be quite
probable because petitioner had admittedly put the date on the cheque in
question.
During the course of hearing, it could not be satisfactorily
explained by petitioner's counsel as to why he had put the date on the
cheque in question. This renders the version of the respondent-
complainant quite probable and acceptable. Both the courts below have
rightly relied upon the version of respondent-complainant and discarded
the version of petitioner.
Finding no glaring or palpable error in the impugned order, this
petition is dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 05, 2015
r
Crl. M.C.No.1581/2014 Page 3
