Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pala Ram vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
114 2024:PHHC:042467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1807-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.03.2024
Pala Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & anr. ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
KEKEKRK
Present:- Mr. R.K.Agnihotri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
KREKK
PANKAJ JAIN, J.CORAL)
1 Present revision petition is directed against judgment dated
19.07.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal upholding the
judgment of conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate 1* Class, Indri holding
the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the NI Act).
2 The petitioner was summoned to face trial for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act on the complaint made by
respondent No.2 after cheque issued by the petitioner bearing No.073363
dated 30.07.2015 for an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- was dishonoured with the
remarks "Drawer Signature Differs" on 31.07.2015.
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
3 The complaint was found to be in order and filed within the
period of limitation. After preliminary inquiry the petitioner was
summoned. The trial Court analyzed the evidence threadbare, held the
petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and
sentenced him as under :-
Pala Ram 138 of NI Act SI for a period of 18 months and further to
pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/-
to the complainant within a period of 2
months. In default of payment of
compensation, shall further undergo SI for 6
months.
4 In appeal the judgment of conviction stands maintained.
5 Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that once the cheque
was not dishonoured for insufficient amount but was dishonoured for
difference in signatures trial Court ought not have held the petitioner guilty.
Rather the case of the petitioner stands proved as the cheque leaf was
misappropriated by the complainant.
6 Having heard rival contentions of the parties and after going
through records of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner-accused in
order to rebut presumption in favour of the complaint as provided under
Section 118 & 139 of the NI Act led evidence. Ex.D-1 has come on record
which shows that one Mohinder Pal filed complaint under Section 138 of the
NI Act against Roshan Lal. A suggestion was put to him by defence counsel
that complainant gave money on interest to Roshan Lal and obtained
security cheque from him. Thus an attempt was made by the petitioner to
prove that accused stood as guarantor for the loan taken by Roshan Lal and
handed over three blank cheques as security which have been misused in the
order/judgment.
present case. Trial Court has rightly held that there is no evidence on record
to link the said cheque and to link the said story with respect to the
complaint case between Mahinder Pal and Roshan Lal to the present case.
7 In the considered opinion of this Court once the accused
himself has made an attempt to prove that the cheque was issued as security
in some transaction and is being misused in the present case he cannot claim
that the signatures appended on the cheque leaf are not that of the accused.
Apart from that no other point has been argued.
8 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no
sum and substance in the present revision petition. Resultantly, the same is
dismissed.
9 Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
off.
(PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE
11.03.2024
Pooja Sharma-I
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
