Jagdish Chand vs Village Gajiyani
2022 Latest Caselaw 9096 HP

        IN       THE   HIGH     COURT OF HIMACHAL                 PRADESH,




                                                                 .
                                   SHIMLA





                    ON THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
                                BEFORE





                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

                    CRIMINAL REVISION No.50 of 2021

    Between:





    JAGDISH CHAND S/O SH.
    KEMPAL RAM, R/O VILLAGE
    GARAI, P.O. KUI, TEHSIL
    ROHRU, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
    H.P.

                                                               ....PETITIONER.

    (MS. REETA THAKUR, LEGAL AID COUNSEL)

    AND



    RAJESH KUMAR S/O LATE
    SH. MATWAR SINGH, R/O




    VILLAGE   GAJIYANI,   P.O.
    SINDASLI, TEHSIL ROHRU,





    DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
                                                           ....RESPONDENT.





    (MR. VIRENDER SINGH RATHOUR, LEARNED COUNSEL)

    Whether approved for reporting?1 No

             This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the

    following:

                   JUDGMENT

With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties,

the matter was heard and is being disposed of accordingly.

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present

petition are that respondent/complainant filed a complaint under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner

.

herein, on the ground that the complainant was the owner of bearing

apple orchard. The accused used to take apple orchard on contract.

The accused had taken the apple orchard of the complainant on

contract for an amount of Rs.3,60,000/­ in the course of the apple

season of the year 2017. Out of the said amount, Rs.2,00,000/­ was

paid to the complainant by the accused and for the balance of

Rs.1,60,000/­, the accused issued cheque bearing No.231353, dated

16.04.2018, drawn upon Punjab National Bank, Rohru. When this

cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured

on account of 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, a legal notice was

issued by the complainant to the accused to make good the

payment, but as the same was not done by the accused despite

receiving the notice, hence the complaint.

2. Learned Trial Court convicted the accused for

commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed the accused

to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,20,000/­ to the

complainant.

3. In appeal, the judgment passed by the learned Trial

Court was upheld.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present

.

Revision Petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

also carefully gone through the judgments passed by both the

learned Courts below.

6. Learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for

commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act taking into consideration the statement

of the complainant and the fact that the complainant had duly

placed on record the cheque which was issued by the accused

alongwith the memos, in terms whereof, the same was dishonoured,

as also the legal notice alongwith postal receipt, which was issued by

the complainant to the accused. Learned Trial Court held that from

the evidence it was manifest that except for the oral statement of the

accused that the cheque in issued was given to the complainant as a

security cheque, nothing else was produced on record by the

complainant to substantiate this fact. Learned Trial Court also held

that whereas the case was of the complainant was that the apple

orchard was taken on contract by the accused in the year 2017,

however, surprisingly the accused in his cross­examination admitted

that cheque Ext.C1 was issued on16.04.2018, which clearly falsified

his defence that he had issued the cheque as a security at the time

of taking the orchard on contract.

7. The Court is of the considered view that the findings

.

which have been returned by the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by

the learned Appellate Court are clearly borne out from the record of

the case and the same are not perverse. Learned Trial Court has

rightly held that as the cheque was admitted by the accused to have

been issued on 16.04.2018, therefore, but natural, by no stretch of

imagination, the same could have been issued as a security for

taking an apple orchard on contract in the year 2017. As learned

Legal Aid Counsel, could not further bring to the notice of the Court

any other infirmity in the judgments under challenge, this Court has

no hesitation in holding that the findings arrived at by both the

learned Courts below are correct findings any do not call any

interference from this Court in exercise of its powers under the

revisional jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, present Revision Petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous, applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 07, 2022 (Rishi)