Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Mittal vs Murlidhar on 16 October, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 16 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 302 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
ANIL MITTAL S/O MAHENDRA KUMAR MITTAL, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, 1372/5, NANDA NAGAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SONALI SONI, ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SHRI
MANOHAR SINGH CHOUHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
MURLIDHAR S/O BHAGWANDAS KATARIYA
OCCUPATION: SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER UCO BANK
MAHARANI ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DHEERAJ SINGH PANWAR, ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for direction this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397/401
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") being aggrieved by
the impugned order dated 03.03.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Indore (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.274/2014, whereby the judgment dated
13.03.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case
No.11313/2008 has been upheld, whereby the applicant has been convicted
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short "NI Act") and
sentenced to 6 months R.I. with a direction to pay the compensation amount of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 18-10-2023
17:46:18
Rs.1,15,385/- to the respondent/complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed a
complaint before the trial Court alleging that the applicant/accused obtained loan
of Rs.15,00,000/- from him for want of necessity under UCO Shelter Scheme
but he has not repaid the loan amount. The accused's bank account was
irregular for a long time. The appellant has issued a cheque of Rs.74,925/- of
Indore Paraspar Sahkari Bank Ltd. Branch Nagar Nigam Market Indore bearing
cheque no.165565 dated 14.02.2008 in favour of the complainant/respondent
but when a complainant presented the cheque for encashment in his bank, the
same was dishonored for want of insufficient amount and within 15 days
complainant/respondent send a legal notice to the applicant/accused through the
registered AD through his counsel. Even after legal notice send by the
respondent, the applicant/accused did not refund the amount, therefore, the
respondent had to file two complaints before the trial Court under Section 138
of the N.I. Act. The trial Court after completion of the evidence found the
applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
and awarded him simple imprisonment of six months with a direction to pay the
compensation amount of Rs.1,15,385/- to the respondent/complainant.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, applicant has preferred the
Criminal Appeal before the Additional Session Judge, Indore but the same was
dismissed by the impugned judgment and order of compensation passed by the
trial Court, hence, this revision has been preferred by the applicant.
4. Applicant has preferred this revision that he made a written complaint
before the Superintendent of Police, Indore on 23.12.2023 regarding fraud
committed with him then he has also filed the private complaint before the
Court. He has also given the reply of notice to the complainant. There is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 18-10-2023
17:46:18
material contention in the statement of Murnidhar Katariya (PW-1). The trial
Court has not considered the statement of Gendalal (PW-1). The
applicant/accused has deposited the entire amount in question by way of
cheque. The bank and vendors has a conspiracy against him. Applicant is
suffering from heart disease and paralysis, hence, he prays that the impugned
judgment passed by both the Courts below be set aside and applicant be
acquitted from all the charges.
5. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service of
notice and also SPC.
6 . I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused
the record.
7. From perusal of the record, it is reflected that the statement of
complainant Murlidhar Katariya who happens to be the Senior Branch Manager
at UCO Bank, Indore has deposed that the bank has granted the loan of
Rs.15,00,000/- to the accused/applicant Anil Mittal and accused has been
executed all the legal documents in favour of the bank but despite several
oral/written notice he has not paid the due amount and on 06.12.2008
applicant/accused has issued a cheque of Rs.1,87,229/- in favour of the bank
but it was dishonored. The statement of complainant Murlidhar Katariya was
well supported by the document i.e. Exhibit-P/1 to P/5. Although,
applicant/accused did not examine himself before the trial Court. He has
examined Gendalal (PW-1) but Gendalal did not having any complete
knowledge regarding transaction between complainant and applicant.
8. Although, he has admitted that accused has obtained loan from the
bank for purchasing the house. After receiving the notice (Exhibut-P/3)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 18-10-2023
17:46:18
respondent has not paid any amount before the bank in connection with the
cheque issued by him. Even after receiving the notice he has not send any reply,
therefore, notice (Exhibit-P/3) is unrebutted.
9. In view of the aforesaid evidence available on record, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the complainant has successfully proved his case
before the trial Court and trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant/accused
for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the First Appellant Court has
re-appreciate the evidence available on record rightly dismissed the appeal filed
by the applicant against the judgment and conviction. Therefore, this Court is of
the considered view that the applicant is guilty for the offence under section 138
of N.I. Act and no interference is required on the point of conviction of the
applicant which has been upheld by both the courts below.
10. So far the sentence of applicant is concerned, he has filed so many
documents regarding prolong treatment of heart and paralysis. Applicant is 65
years old person and suffered from medical ailment. During the pendency of
this appeal he has already suffered jail incarceration of 10 days. Applicant has
filed several money receipt and from perusal of the said receipt it is proved that
the applicant has deposited the entire amount in question before the trial Court.
Therefore, looking to the old age and medical ailment of the applicant, it would
be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence awarded to him.
1 1 . Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to reduce the jail
sentence of the applicant Anil Mittal to the period already undergone. The
compensation amount imposed upon the petitioner by both the Courts below is
hereby affirmed, which is already deposited by the petitioner. The sentence of
the applicant is modified to the aforesaid extent.
12. Consequently, the present criminal revision is partly allowed to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 18-10-2023
17:46:18
extent as indicated above. The applicant Anil Mittal is on bail. His bail bond and
surety bond stand discharged.
13. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of both the Courts
below be sent back to the concerned Courts for necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
VS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 18-10-2023
17:46:18
