Vinod Kumar vs Sri Mohan [3] Held That Section 139 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5376 HP

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                   ON THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                                     BEFORE

                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA




                                                                   .

                    CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 109 OF 2020


    Between:-





    VINOD KUMAR
    S/O SH. HARI CHAND
    R/O VILL. & P.O. JAROL,
    TEHSIL, SUNDER NAGAR,





    DISTT. MANDI, H.P.
    AGED 41 YRS
                                                                 ... PETITIONER
    (BY MR. H.S. RANGRA, ADVOCATE)

    AND

    1.     SH. DEEP SAINI
           S/O SH. DEVI RAM,
           VILL. CHANGER COLONY, P.O. BBMB TOWNSHIP
           SUNDER NAGAR, DISTT. MANDI,
           H.P.


                                      RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
    2.     STATE OF HP




                                                               .. RESPONDENT





    (BY MR. RAJAN KAHOL, ADVOCATE
    FOR R-1

    MR SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND





    MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR,
    ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL
    WITH MR. NARINDER THAKUR,
    DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL,
    FOR R-2)

    Whether approved for reporting: Yes.

    This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:




                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:52 :::CIS
                                          2


                                   O R D E R

By way of instant Cr. Revision petition filed under S.397 read with

S. 401 CrPC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 21.12.2019

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District

.

Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 69/2015, affirming judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.8.2014 passed by learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District

Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Complaint No. 41-I/2011//33-III/2011,

whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused

(hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offences punishable

under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act'),

convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one

year and pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the

respondent/complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant/).

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are

that the complainant instituted a complaint under S. 138 of the Act, in the

competent court of law, alleging therein that he had advanced Rs.50,000/-

to the accused, who, with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque

No. 289383, dated 18.7.2010, amounting to Rs. 50,000/- (Ext. CW-1/A).

However, the fact remains that the said cheque on its presentation was

dishonoured with the remarks, "exceeds arrangement". Banker of the

complainant informed him about dishonouring of the cheque through

memo, Ext. CW-3/A. After having received memo from the Bank,

complainant served the accused with legal notice, Ext. CW-4/A, calling

upon him to make good the payment within the time stipulated in the

notice, but when the accused failed to make good the payment within the

stipulated time, complainant was compelled to institute complaint under

S.138 of the Act in the competent Court of law.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence collected on record

.

by respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence

punishable under 138 of the act and convicted and sentenced him as per

description given herein above.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction

and order of sentence recorded by learned court below, accused

preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Sundernagar, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated

21.12.2019. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this

Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after

setting aside the judgments of conviction and order of sentence.

5. Vide order dated 2.3.2020, this court, while suspending the

substantive sentence imposed upon the accused, directed him to deposit

15% of the compensation amount. Although aforesaid order was duly

complied with, but the matter repeatedly came to be adjourned enabling

the accused to pay the entire amount of compensation to the complainant.

6. Today during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel for

the petitioner stated that the petitioner is not coming forward to impart

instructions, as such, the matter can be heard and decided on merit.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

material available on record this court finds no force in the submission

made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned courts below

have misread the evidence, as a consequence of which findings,

detrimental to the accused have come on record, rather, careful perusal of

evidence led on record by the parties clearly proves that the accused with

a view to discharge his liability issued cheque in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to

.

the complainant, but the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient

funds in his bank account.

8. In the case at hand, complainant with a view to prove his case,

besides examining himself as CW-1 also examined, CW-2 Mahipal,

Manager, Punjab National Bank, Barmana, CW-3, JIwanand, Cashier,

State Bank of India, Sundernagar, CW-4 H.L. Sharma, Advocate and

CW-5, Dhani Ram, postman.

9. Accused in his statement recorded under S. 313 CrPC, denied

the case of complainant in toto and claimed himself to be innocent. In his

defence, he examined his father, Hari Chand, as DW-1.

10. CW-1 Complainant i.e. Deep Saini, deposed that he had given

Rs. 1.00 Lakh to the accused in the month of June, 2010 and he issued

two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each, one in July, 2010 and another in

August, 2010. Cheque Ext. CW-1/A, was issued on 18.7.2010 and he had

presented the same for collection in the State Bank of India, Sundernagar,

District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, where he had his account but the

cheque could not be encashed due to insufficient funds, regarding which

memo of State Bank of India, Sundernagar is (Mark A). This witness

further deposed that he served a notice (Mark B) upon the accused at his

correct address through registered post and postal receipt thereof is Mark

C and undelivered registered letter is Mark D.

11. In his cross-examination, CW-1 admitted that name of his

brother is Rajender, however, he feigned ignorance with regard to

dealing of the accused, if any, with his brother. This witness denied that

he had no dealing with the accused. This witness stated that he does not

.

remember the date when money was given to the accused but

volunteered that it was given in June, 2010. He further deposed that

accused issued two cheques in July and August, 2010. This witness

further deposed that he presented the cheque in the bank in First week of

August, 2010. This witness denied the suggestion put to him that the legal

notice was not sent at the correct address of the accused. He feigned

ignorance that the original address of the accused is of Tateli, where the

accused has his landed property but self stated that the house of accused

is at Jaroli. This witness though admitted that the notice was not sent to

Jarol but self stated that the accused resided in Sundernagar. This

witness denied the suggestion that the blank cheque was given to him by

the accused and he had filled in the amount himself.

12. CW-2 Mahipal, Manager, Punjab National Bank Barmana and

CW-3, Jiwanand, Cashier, State Bank of India, Sundernagar,

corroborated the version of CW-1 with regard to presentation of cheque

as well as dishonouring of the same on account of insufficient funds in the

account of the accused.

13. CW-2 Mahipal deposed that the accused Vinod Kumar has his

account in his bank. He also stated that the cheque CW-1/A is of his bank

and same was received for collection from State Bank of India,

Sundernagar and there were insufficient funds in the account of the

accused and as such, same was returned vide Ext. CW-3/A, which bears

his signatures in red circle, Ext. CW-2/A. In his cross-examination, this

witness denied the suggestion that Ext. CW-1/A is not of his bank. He

also deposed that account was in the name of Vinod Cloth House, which

.

was being operated by Vinod Kumar.

14. CW-3 Jiwanand, Cashier, State Bank of India, Sundernagar,

also stated that as per record, complainant had account No.

10999810334 in his bank. He deposed that on 9.8.2010, complainant

gave them cheque for collection and same was sent to Punjab National

Bank, Barmana on 14.8.2010, which was dishonoured due to insufficient

funds and they received dishonour memo Ext. CW-2/A on 23.8.2010. He

further deposed that through memo Ext. CW-3/A, cheque was returned to

the complainant..

15. CW-4 H.L. Sharma, Advocate, deposed that he on the askance

of complainant had served accused with legal notice Ext. CW-4/A on

25.8.2010 which bears his signatures and its receipt is Ext. CW-4/B. He

deposed that the notice was sent through registered AD post on

27.8.2010 and was received back undelivered.

16. CW-5 Dhani Ram postman deposed that on 27.8.2010 he had

received registered letter Ext. CW-5/A for delivering the same to the

accused but he was not found in his house and therefore he had given

intimation of registry at his house. He deposed that the registered letter

remained in the post office for six days but no one came to collect it and

on seventh day, he made endorsement Ext. CW-5/B of unclaimed and

returned it back. He admitted his signatures on the endorsement. In his

cross-examination, this witness denied the suggestion put to him that

when he had gone to deliver Ext. CW-5/A, there was no family member of

accused present. He stated that he had given intimation to the mother of

accused. This witness further deposed that after 27.8.2010, he had visited

.

house of accused on 28.8.2010 and 2.9.2010.

17. Father of accused, while appearing as DW-1 deposed that the

cheques were given by the brother of the complainant, namely Rajender

Kumar and he had asked him to fill the amount and not the name. He

deposed that he had given cheque to Rajender. He stated that the

payment regarding cheque was made through bank and when he

demanded the cheque he was asked to pay 20% interest. This witness

deposed that the cheque was not returned by complainant and Rajender

issued cheque in the name of his brother. This witness further deposed

that Rajender came to his shop with some persons and threw his goods

outside and quarrelled with him and FIR has been registered and case is

pending in Court No.2. He deposed that they have no dealing with the

complainant.

18. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that the accused is

his son. He denied that the complainant gave money to his son and

regarding it, cheque in question was issued. This witness admitted that a

notice was sent and despite the notice, they had not returned the money.

19. If the entire evidence as discussed herein above, is perused in

its entirety, it stands proved beyond doubt that the complainant had

advanced sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused, who with a view to

discharge his liability, had issued cheque but the same was dishonoured

on account of insufficient funds. It also stands proved on record that the

complainant after having received memo regarding dishonouring of

cheque, served the accused with legal notice, which was not received by

accused intentionally. Though, legal notice was sent through registered

.

post but same could not be delivered to the accused as he was not found

at the address but intimation was given to his mother, yet the accused did

not bother to collect the same from post office as is evident from the

statement of postman CW-5.

20. DW-1 Hari Chand, father of the accused has admitted in his

cross-examination that though the notice was sent but despite that they

did not return the money, meaning thereby that the complainant before

instituting the complaint had afforded an opportunity to the accused to

make good the payment. Though in the case at hand, accused in his

statement recorded under S.313 CrPC, denied the case of the

complainant in toto but if the cross-examination conducted upon

complainant is perused in its entirety, juxtaposing the statement of DW-1,

Hari Chand, it stands clearly proved on record that the cheque in question

was issued in favour of the complainant, under the signatures of the

accused.

21. DW-1 Hari Chand, deposed that cheques were given by brother

of complainant, Rajender and he had asked him to fill the amounts but not

the name and payment regarding cheque was made through bank and

when they demanded the cheque, 20% interest amount was asked by the

complainant.

22. Once there is no denial of issuance of cheque and signatures

thereupon, presumption as available under Ss.118 and 139 comes into

play. Section 118 and 139 of the Act clearly provide that it shall be

presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque

.

received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the

discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. True, it is that

to rebut aforesaid presumption accused can always raise probable

defence either by leading some positive evidence or by referring to the

material, if any adduced on record by the complainant.

23. Once issuance of cheque and signatures thereupon are not

denied, presumption starts in favour of holder of cheque and once such

presumption starts, onus shifts upon the person issuing the cheque.

Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble

Apex Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18

SCC 106, wherein, it has been held as under:

"18. In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the

presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the Trial Court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want

of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. This approach of the Trial Court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such

presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his

favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused-appellant. The aspect relevant for consideration had been as to whether the accused-appellant has brought on record such facts/material/circumstances which could be of a reasonably probable defence.

19. In order to discharge his burden, the accused put forward the defence that in fact, he had had the monetary transaction with the said Shri Jagdishbhai and not with the complainant. In view of such a plea of the accused-appellant, the question for consideration is as to whether the

accused-appellant has shown a reasonable probability of existence of any transaction with Shri Jagdishbhai? In this regard, significant it is to notice that apart from making certain suggestions in the cross- examination, the accused- appellant has not adduced any documentary evidence to satisfy even primarily that there had been some monetary transaction of himself with Shri Jagdishbhai. Of course, one of the

.

allegations of the appellant is that the said stamp paper was given to Shri

Jagdishbhai and another factor relied upon is that Shri Jagdishbhai had signed on the stamp paper in question and not the complainant. 19.1 We have examined the statement of Shri Jagdishbhai as also the

said writing on stamp papers and are unable to find any substance in the suggestions made on behalf of the accused-appellant. 19.2 The said witness Shri Jagdishbhai, while pointing out his acquaintance and friendship with the appellant as also with the respondent, asserted in his examination-in-chief, inter alia, as under:

"Accused when he comes to our shop where the complainant in the matter Shashimohan also be present that in both the complainant and accused being our friends, were made acquaintance with each other. The accused had necessity of money in his business, in my presence, had demanded Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees twenty two lacs fifty thousandly) on temporary basis. And thereafter, the complainant from his family

members by taking in piecemeal had given to the accused in my

presence. Thereafter, on demanding the money by the complainant, the accused had given seven (7) cheques to the complainant in our presence but such cheques being washed out in rainy water and on informing me by the complainant I had informed to the accused. Thereafter, Rohitbhai had given other seven (7) cheques to the complainant in my presence and the deed was executed on Rs. 100/- stamp paper in there is my

signature."

19.3 This witness was cross-examined on various aspects as regards the particulars in the writing on the stamp paper and the date and time of the

transactions. In regard to the defence as put in the cross-examination, the witness stated as under:

"I have got shop in National Plaza but in rain no water logging has

taken place. It is not true that there had been no financial dealings between me and the accused today. It is not true that I had given rupees ten lacs to the accused Rohitbhai on temporary basis. It is not true that for the amount given to the accused, I had taken

seven blank duly cheques also blank stamp paper without signature. It is not true that there was quarrel between me and the accused in the matter of payment of interest. It is not true that even after the payment of Rs. ten lacs and the huge amount of the interest in the matter of interest quarrel was made. It is not true that due to the reason of quarrel with the accused, in the cheques of the accused lying with me by making obstinate writing has filed the false complaint through Shashimohan Goyanka. It is not true that no financial dealings have taken place between the complainant and the accused. therefore I also the complainant both at the time of evidence the accused at what place, on what date at what time, the amount taken has not been able to make

clearly. (sic) It is not true that the blank stamp paper duly signed were lying in which obstinate writing has been made therefore the same has not been registered through sub registrar. It is not true that the dealings have been made between me and accused therefore there is my signature and the signature of the accused and the complainant has not signed. It is not true that any types of dealings between the accused and the complainant having not

.

been done in my presence therefore in my statement no clarification has been given. It is not true that the accused in my

presence as mentioned in the complaint any cheque has not been given. It is not true that I in collusion with the complainant to usurp the false amount the false complaint has been filed through Shashimohan Goyanka. It is not true that in support of the

complaint of Shashimohan Goyanka is giving false statement."

19.4 The statement of Shri Jagdishbhai does not make out any case in favour of the accused-appellant. It is difficult to say that by merely putting the suggestion about the alleged dealing to Shri Jagdishbhai, the

accused- appellant has been able to discharge his burden of bringing on record such material which could tilt the preponderance of probabilities in his favour.

19.5 The acknowledgement on the stamp paper as executed by the

appellant on 21.03.2007 had been marked with different exhibit numbers in these 7 cases. In Complaint Case No. 46499 of 2008, the same is marked as Ex. 54 and reads as under :

"Today the executor I Rohit Patel Ranchhodray Masala is a

partner. Due to the financial difficulties having been arised, I have taken Rs.22,500,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand fifty thousand only- sic) from my group which are to be paid to Shashimohan Goyanka.

With reference to that today I have given seven (7) cheques of

Corporation Bank, Alkapuri Branch bearing No. 763346 to 762252

amounting to Rs. 22,50,000/- (Rupees twenty two lacs fifty thousand only) Dates : (1) 01/4/08, (2) 01/05/08 (3) 01/07/08, (4) 01/08/08 (5) 01/10/08 (6) 01/11/08 (7) 01/12/08 the account of which is 40007.

Earliest these cheques were given but due to rainy water logging the said cheques having been washed out (7) cheques have again been given which is acceptable to me."

19.6 The fact of the matter remains that the appellant could not deny his signatures on the said writing but attempted to suggest that his signatures were available on the blank stamp paper with Shri Jagdishbhai. This suggestion is too remote and too uncertain to be accepted. No cogent reason is available for the appellant signing a blank

stamp paper. It is also indisputable that the cheques as mentioned therein with all the relevant particulars like cheque numbers, name of Bank and account number are of the same cheques which form the subject matter of these complaint cases. The said document bears the date 21.03.2007 and the cheques were post- dated, starting from

.

01.04.2008 and ending at 01.12.2008. There appears absolutely no

reason to discard this writing from consideration. 19.7 One of the factors highlighted on behalf of the appellant is that the said writing does not bear the signature of the complainant but and

instead, it bears the signatures of said Shri Jagdishbhai. We find nothing unusual or objectionable if the said writing does not bear the signatures of the complainant. The said writing is not in the nature of any bi partite agreement to be signed by the parties thereto. It had been a writing in the

nature of acknowledgement by the accused-appellant about existence of a debt; about his liability to repay the same to the complainant; about his having issued seven post-dated cheques; about the particulars of such

cheques; and about the fact that the cheques given earlier had washed

away in the rain water logging. Obviously, this writing, to be worth its evidentially value, had to bear the signatures of the accused, which it does. It is not unusual to have a witness to such a document so as to add to its authenticity; and, in the given status and relationship of the parties,

Shri Jagdishbhai would have been the best witness for the purpose. His signatures on this document, therefore, occur as being the witness thereto. This document cannot be ruled out of consideration and existing

this writing, the preponderance of probabilities lean heavily against the accused-appellant.

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Laxmi Dyechem V. State of

Gujarat, 2013(1) RCR(Criminal), has categorically held that if the

accused is able to establish a probable defence which creates doubt

about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the

prosecution can fail. To raise probable defence, accused can rely on the

materials submitted by the complainant. Needless to say, if the

accused/drawer of the cheque in question neither raises a probable

defence nor able to contest existence of a legally enforceable debt or

liability, statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, regarding commission of the offence comes into play. It

would be profitable to reproduce relevant paras No.23 to 25 of the

.

judgment herein:-

"23. Further, a three judge Bench of this Court in the matter of

Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan [3] held that Section 139 is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies the strong criminal remedy in relation to the

dishonour of the cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. The Court however, further observed that it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138can be better described as a regulatory offence since the

bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose money is usually confined to the private parties involved

in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof". The Court further observed that it is a settled position that when an

accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is all preponderance of probabilities.

24. Therefore, if the accused is able to establish a probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally

enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is inconceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce the evidence

of his/her own. If however, the accused/drawer of a cheque in question neither raises a probable defence nor able to contest existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, obviously statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act regarding commission of the offence comes into play if the same is not rebutted with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant.

25. It is no doubt true that the dishonour of cheques in order to qualify for prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act precedes a statutory notice where the drawer is called upon by

allowing him to avail the opportunity to arrange the payment of the amount covered by the cheque and it is only when the drawer despite the receipt of such a notice and despite the opportunity to make the payment within the time stipulated under the statute does not pay the amount, that the said default would be considered a dishonour constituting an offence, hence punishable. But even in such cases, the question whether or

.

not there was lawfully recoverable debt or liability for discharge

whereof the cheque was issued, would be a matter that the trial court will have to examine having regard to the evidence adduced before it keeping in view the statutory presumption that unless rebutted, the cheque is presumed to have been

issued for a valid consideration. In view of this the responsibility of the trial judge while issuing summons to conduct the trial in matters where there has been instruction to stop payment despite sufficiency of funds and whether the same would be a sufficient ground to proceed in the matter, would be extremely

heavy."

25. Having carefully examined the evidence available on record,

this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments

passed by the courts below, which otherwise appear to be based upon

the correct appreciation of evidence and as such, same need to be

upheld. Moreover, this Court has a very limited jurisdiction under Section

397 of the Cr.PC, to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, in view of the

concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the courts below. In this

regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex

Court in case "State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan

Namboodiri" (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452, wherein it has been

held as under:-

"In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily,

therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice."

.

26. Since after having carefully examined the evidence in the

present case, this Court is unable to find any error of law as well as fact, if

any, committed by the courts below while passing impugned judgments,

and as such, there is no occasion, whatsoever, to exercise the revisional

power.

27. True it is that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another

Versus Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241;

has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or

misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not

correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the

process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness

committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of

sentence or order, but learned counsel representing the accused has

failed to point out any material irregularity committed by the courts below

while appreciating the evidence and as such, this Court sees no reason to

interfere with the well reasoned judgments passed by the courts below.

28. Having scanned entire evidence available on record, this court

is convinced and satisfied that complainant has successfully proved by

leading cogent and convincing evidence that the accused issued cheque

in question in discharge of his lawful liability, but the same came to be

dishonored. Since despite issuance of legal notice, accused failed to

make good the payment, learned court below, in the totality of evidence

led on record by the complainant, rightly held accused guilty of having

committed offence punishable under S.138 of act and as such, no

interference in the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence is

.

called for.

29. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed being

devoid of any merit. Impugned judgments/order of conviction and

sentence passed by learned Courts below are upheld. The petitioner is

directed to surrender before the learned trial Court forthwith to serve the

sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court, if not already served.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Bail bonds, if any,

furnished by the accused are cancelled.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge November 24, 2021 (Vikrant)