Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gaba vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 April, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
CRR-1827-2008 -1-
2024:PHHC:061278
207 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1827-2008
Decided on: 20.04.2024
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gaba .... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Rakshak Gupta, Advocate
amicus curiae for the petitioner.
Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed against the impugned
judgment dated 11.08.2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalandhar (Annexure P-1), whereby, the judgment dated 24.08.2006
(Annexure P-2) passed by JMIC, Jalandhar, was upheld and the appeal
of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. As per allegations levelled by the complainant, the father of
the accused and the co-accused had family ties with the complainant.
The accused requested for a loan of Rs.11 lacs from the complainant,
citing the need to submit a tender to a pharmaceutical company. The
complainant paid Rs.11 lacs to the accused on an assurance that it
would be repaid later. To fulfil this liability, the accused issued five
post-dated cheques to the complainant. However, when the
complainant presented the cheques on 10.09.2003, they were
2024:PHHC:061278
dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the bank account of the
accused. On being informed and despite assurances given by the
accused that the cheques would be honoured in future, the cheques
were presented again on 11.03.2003, however, they were yet again
dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Following this, the complainant
sent a notice to the accused, who neither replied to the same nor made
good the payment.
3. Learned trial Court after examining the preliminary
evidence, summoned the petitioner-accused to face trial for
commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act'). Upon appearance, a notice of
accusation was served, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. Consequently, learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence
recorded, convicted the petitioner - accused No.1 for commission of
offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo RI
for two years along with payment of fine of Rs. 1000. Aggrieved by the
judgement of conviction, the appeal preferred before Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalandhar was dismissed due to non-prosecution on
11.08.2008.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial
Court gravely erred in convicting him under Section 138 of the Act. The
Courts failed to consider a crucial admission, which was made by the
respondent-complainant during his cross- examination, wherein he
confessed that he did not have the means to extend the loan of Rs.11
2024:PHHC:061278
lacs, which had been purportedly advanced by him to the accused.
Learned counsel asserted that this admission casts a significant doubt
on the veracity of the accusations and the claim made by the
complainant. Additionally, the absence of any supporting
documentation to substantiate the existence of a legally enforceable
debt between the petitioner and the complainant was most paramount
in this case. Consequently, the complainant had failed to establish his
capacity to advance the purportedly loan.
Furthermore, learned counsel asserted that the actual
amount lent by the complainant was Rs.3 lakhs and not Rs.11 lakhs as
had been alleged in the complaint, and the disputed cheques had been
issued as collateral for loan repayment. Learned counsel maintained
that the accused had been diligently repaying the loan through
installments and the account remained unsettled. Moreover, he
contended that the complainant misused the blank signed cheques,
originally provided as security, to falsely implicate the accused.
Learned counsel, thus, argued that all these circumstances raised
doubts about the existence of any legally enforceable debt between the
petitioner and the complainant. Learned counsel also emphasised that
the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen leading a peaceful life and has
endured prolonged criminal proceedings for the past 18 years.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused the relevant material
available on record.
6. Upon thorough examination of the material and other
2024:PHHC:061278
evidence led during trial, it stands unequivocally proved that the
accused indeed obtained a loan of Rs.11 lakhs from the complainant.
The issuance of three cheques, which are Exhibits P-1 to P-3 totalling
Rs.5 lakhs, was evidently intended to fulfil this legal obligation, which
stands corroborated by the admission of accused himself, that he is a
signatory to the cheques in question. Furthermore, learned counsel for
the petitioner failed to rebut the legal presumption that cheques Ex.P-2
and Ex.P-3 were issued to settle a liability with respect to the alleged
loan amount of Rs.11 lakhs.
7. In the light of the above circumstances and evidence led, it
is unmistakeably clear that the judgment of conviction passed by the
Court below does not suffer from any perversity and is in accordance
with settled law. The Court has soundly appreciated the evidence
presented during trial.
8. Thus, in the present circumstances, it is evident from the
perusal of the judgments of conviction passed by both the learned trial
Court and the lower Appellate Court that there is no perversity in their
findings and the same are based on correct appreciation of evidence
available on record.
9. As a sequel to the above, present petition being devoid of
any merit, stands dismissed.
20.04.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
