Pardeep Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 21819 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pardeep Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 13 December, 2023

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160797




CRR-1388-2022(O&M)              #1#                       2023:PHHC:160797

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH.


                                                     CRR-1388-2022(O&M)

                                                Date of Decision:-13.12.2023

Pardeep Kumar.
                                                                   ......Petitioner.
                                      Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors.
                                                                ......Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:-   Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the Petitioner.

            Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

            Mr. D.K. Singhal, Advocate for the Complainant.

                                ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The instant revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner-accused against the judgment dated 04.12.2019 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby the judgment of conviction

dated 03.06.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala has been

upheld.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Rakesh

Kumar Singla file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act stating that in discharge for his legally enforceable debt the

petitioner-accused issued a cheque bearing no.887644 dated 11.11.2015 for

an amount of Rs.50,000/- of ICICI Bank in his (complainant's) favour which

came to be dishonoured. Based on the preliminary evidence the petitioner

was summoned to face trial vide order dated 02.02.2016.

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160797

CRR-1388-2022(O&M) #2# 2023:PHHC:160797

3. On conclusion of the Trial the petitioner was convicted and

sentence as under:-

Name of the Convict Under Section Sentence Pardeep Kumar 138 of Negotiable Rigorous imprisonment for a Instruments Act period of one year and compensation equivalent to Rs.50,000/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of issuance of cheque till the final realization from the date of issuance of cheque of amount and in case of default of compensation simple imprisonment for period 03 months.

4. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala which also came to be dismissed vide

judgment dated 04.12.2019.

5. The present revision petition has been preferred against the

aforementioned judgments of conviction.

6. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the courts below

did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. The complainant

had failed to prove that the cheque had been issued in the discharge of

legally enforceable debt. In fact, a blank signed cheque had been misused

by a partner of the petitioner leading to his conviction. The alleged loan

transaction had not been reflected in the income tax returns. The petitioner

was financially much better placed and, therefore, the question of borrowing

any amount from the complainant did not arise. He, therefore, contends that

the impugned judgments were liable to be set aside and the petitioner ought

to be acquitted of the charges framed against him.

7. The Counsel for the complainant on the other hand contends

that the offence against the petitioner-accused stood well established on the

basis of the evidence available on record. No infirmity whatsoever could be

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160797

CRR-1388-2022(O&M) #3# 2023:PHHC:160797

found in the well reasoned judgments of the Trial Court and lower Appellate

Court. The petitioner had admitted his signatures on the cheque in question.

Therefore, there was no merit in the present petition and the same was liable

to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

9. A perusal of the file would reveal that the offence against the

petitioner stands well established. The signatures on the cheque stands

admitted. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the blank signed

cheque by the petitioner had been misused by the partner. In fact there was

absolutely no evidence of any partner of the petitioner. The duly served

legal notice had not been responded to by the petitioner to set up any

defence whatsoever. The petitioner has also not been able to prove that he

was financially better placed and, therefore, did not require the loan from the

complainant. Further, merely because the cheque amount had not been

reflected in the ITRs of the complainant does not weaken the case of the

complainant in view of the evidence available on record.

10. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the well

reasoned judgments of conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Patiala which has been upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.

Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed.

                                                ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                                                     JUDGE
December 13, 2023
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                      Yes/No
        Whether reportable                             Yes/No




                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160797

                                       3 of 3