Krishna Kumar vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 9052 MP

                                                            1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 626 of 2010

                          BETWEEN:-
                          KRISHNA KUMAR S/O S/O MOHAN LAL YADAV , AGED
                          ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O
                          VILL.GOPAL PUR, POST PANAHPUR, P.S.GALA GOKAR
                          NATH DISTT.LAKHIMPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                          (SHRI SUNIL JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER )

                          AND
                          1.    STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    RAGHUBEER SINGH S/O S/O SAMEER SINGH SIKH
                                , AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                AGRICULTURE,R/O VILL. KAKARBAYA DISTT.
                                SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI PRAMOD PACHAURI- LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE
                          RESPONDENT NO.1- STATE)

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

                          following:
                                                             ORDER

The petitioner has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC challenging the order dated 02-08-2010 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2010 confirming the judgment dated 18-05-2010 passed by the Court of JMFC, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No. 91 of 2008, by which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo six months Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/21/2023 11:39:13 AM

RI with a direction to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lac to respondent no.2- complainant.

Facts giving rise to present revision in short are that complainant- respondent no.2 and petitioner accused were having made a deal to purchase some agricultural land in State of UP and petitioner took an amount of Rs.48,0000 from complainant. On cancellation of deal, two cheques amounting to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.28,000/- were given to complainant by petitioner. When said cheques were presented before the Bank at Shivpuri, the same were dishonoured due to insufficient of funds with bank endorsement. After receiving endorsement, a notice was sent to petitioner which was received by his brother.

Due to non-payment of aforesaid amount to complainant, complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act before the Court below and before the Court below the complaint did not appear along with his witnesses. After recording evidence as well as documents available on record, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for aforesaid offence. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before lower Appellate Court and the same was dismissed. Hence, this revision.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no liability to pay aforesaid huge amount to the petitioner as there is no relationship between them and without registration of any land in the State of UP, no money transaction can be held in the matter. No notice was ever delivered and the petitioner was not having knowledge about the alleged complaint. The complainant has failed to establish by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that on presenting the disputed cheques for encashment in back, the same were returned by bank with an endorsement of '' insufficient of funds''. The learned trial Court as well as lower appellate Court have committed Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/21/2023 11:39:13 AM

an error as there was no jurisdiction to hear matter as no cause of action had arisen in Shivpuri. Therefore, the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by two Courts below are contrary to law and same are liable to be set aside.

On the contrary, counsel for the State supported the impugned judgments and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

Having perused the record and gone through the impugned judgments passed by trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments.

The Apex Court in the case of Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration as reported in (1975) 4 SCC 649 has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. The said judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659.

Accordingly, present criminal revision stands dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/21/2023 11:39:13 AM