Shivendra Singh Chauhan vs Rajkumar Sharma
2023 Latest Caselaw 889 MP

                                                            1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                              ON THE 16 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 542 of 2010

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SHIVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN S/O S/O KRISHNPAL
                          SINGH    CHAUHAN , AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                          OCCUPATION: R/O KUNJ VIHAR COLONY, GOLE KA
                          MANDIR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPLICANT
                          (NO ONE APPEARS FOR THE APPLICANT)

                          AND
                          1.    RAJKUMAR SHARMAS /O SARYU PRASAD
                                SHARMA OCCUPATION: NIL R/O YADAV DHARM
                                KANTA, A.B.ROAD, SHARDA, VIDHYA NIKETAN
                                KE PAS, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI ANAND PUROHIT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
                          NO.1- COMPLAINANT AND SHRI N. K. GUPTA- LEARNED PUBLIC
                          PROSECUTOR FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2- STATE)

                                Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

Today one appears for the applicant despite this matter is listed under ''direction matters''. Even on 07-01-2019 and 08-02-2020 no one had appeared for the applicant. The present Criminal Revision is pending since 2010.

Necessary facts for disposal of present revision in short are that applicant accused and complainant- respondent no.1 are well known to each

Signature Not Verified other and they were having commercial transaction with each other. Applicant Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 1/16/2023 6:30:09 PM

accused is a Partner and Director of National Developers Corporation. An agreement was executed between them in regard to commercial transaction by which, the complainant had given to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- to the applicant- accused. The applicant had given two cheques dated 26-09-2007 to complainant of Rs.1,60,000/- of each. When said cheques were presented before the Bank concerned by complainant for encashment, it was dishonoured as the payment was stopped by the applicant accused by giving information to the Bank concerned. Thereafter, a notice was sent by complainant and despite receiving notice, applicant did not pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, therefore, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act.

The applicant appeared before the Court below after receiving the notice and denied allegations made by complainant respondent No.1. After recording oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court vide its impugned judgment passed in RT No.731 of 2008 held the applicant guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him for six months RI and ordered to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lac under Section 357(3) of CrPC with default stipulation. Being aggrieved, applicant preferred a criminal appeal before the appellate Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 5th day of July, 2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2010. Being dissatisfied, present criminal revision has been preferred at the instance of applicant.

In the memo of revision, it is contended on behalf of the applicant that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is against the facts and law. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no compliance of Section 141 of the NI Act. The trial Court also filed to take into consideration that the cheque was dishnoured on account of stop Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 1/16/2023 6:30:09 PM

payment but not on account of stop payment, therefore, there is no criminal liability on the part of applicant. There is no document available on record in regard to transaction of amount between applicant and complainant. It is further contended that Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited by applicant in the trial Court in compliance of order dated 28-04-2010 passed by the Appellate Court and Rs.1 lac has already been deposited in compliance of order dated 14-07- 2010 passed by this Court and has also been deposited deposited after passing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Hence, prayed for allowing present revision by setting aside the judgments of Courts below.

On perusal of impugned judgments as well as documents available on record, it appears that no material illegality or perversity has been committed by trial Court. This revision being devoid of merits, is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court in RT No.731 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2010 are hereby affirmed. As per record, the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.

A copy of this order be sent to concerned Courts below for information and compliance.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 1/16/2023 6:30:09 PM