Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 15 January, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005188
CRR-3153-2010 (O&M) -1-
(203)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3153-2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.01.2025
HARBANS LAL
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Vaneet Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2/complainant.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present revision petition has been preferred against the
judgment dated 17.11.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalandhar, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.2007 passed by
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Phillaur, has been dismissed.
2. The complaint in the present case came to be registered on
21.09.2004. The judgment of conviction was passed on 13.12.2007 by the
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Phillaur. The appeal filed against the order of
conviction was dismissed on 17.11.2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalandhar. The instant revision petition was filed on 27.11.2010 and has
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005188
CRR-3153-2010 (O&M) -2-
come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of more than 20 ½ years
from the date of registration of the complaint.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant
Gurmail Singh filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act (in short 'the Act') read with section 406 and 420 IPC, against
accused/petitioner Harbans Lal on the allegations that accused/petitioner had
purchased 12 buffaloes from him in year 2004 for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/-. He
made payment of Rs.10,000/- only. He issued Cheque No.0452797 dated
07.05.2004 for Rs.3,20,000/- in order to discharge his aforesaid liability from
his Account No.4492/2 of Kapurthala Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.,
Branch Phagwara. The complainant presented the said cheque for clearance
through his banker Punjab National Bank, Goraya (Atta). The said cheque
was returned unpaid on 05.08.2004 along with memo dated 04.08.2004 of the
bank with the remarks that the accused was having insufficient funds in his
account.
The complainant issued mandatory notice dated 16.08.2004 vide
postal receipt dated 17.08.2004 within 15 days of receipt of intimation of
dishonor of said cheque, calling upon the accused/petitioner to make
payment of the same but he refused to accept the notice, meaning thereby
that said notice was duly served upon him. Therefore, the complaint had been
filed.
4. After recording preliminary evidence, the accused was
summoned to face trial. On his appearance, notice of accusation under
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005188
CRR-3153-2010 (O&M) -3-
Section 138 of the Act was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
5. During trial, Gurmail Singh complainant/respondent himself
stepped into the witness box as CW1 and recounted all the allegations against
the accused on oath. He proved various documents viz cheque Ex.C2, bank
memo Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipt Ex.C5 and postal
envelope Ex.C7.
6. After closure of evidence of the complainant, statement of
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. Version unfolded by the
accused was that he never purchased buffaloes from the
complainant/respondent No.2 nor issued the cheque in dispute. One Pawan
Kumar had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and as security he
had given four blank cheques. The complainant had misused the said cheque.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Dalbir Singh, who
deposed that the complainant was a partner of Khakh Finance Co., G.T.Road,
Phagwara. He was employed as a Clerk in the said company but he did not
support the case of the accused. He deposed that he was not aware as to
whether Pawan Kumar was being issued receipts by Khakh Finance Co.
regarding payment of loan. He did not identify his signatures on any of the
receipts put to him. He deposed that he was not aware if Pawan Kumar took
any loan from the finance company in the year 2002. He also did not know
that Harbans Lal stood as guarantor for repayment of such loan of Pawan
Kumar and gave the cheque in question to the complainant.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005188
CRR-3153-2010 (O&M) -4-
DW2 Mohinder Pal deposed that accused Harbans Lal issued
blank cheque in favour of aforesaid finance company of the complainant as a
security for repayment of loan of Rs.20,000/- of Pawan Kumar in his
presence. Similar statement was made by DW3 Kewal Krishan.
DW4 Arvind Sood, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert
deposed that he compared the questioned signatures of Gurmail Singh on
receipt Ex.D2 dated 11.03.2003 with standard signatures marked S1 to S4 at
the end of his statement made in the Court on 07.09.2005, at the end of his
statement vide which he closed his evidence on 07.09.2005, at the end of
Vakalatnama dated 16.09.2004 at the end of statement made in the court at
the end of interim order dated 14.01.2006 and opined that the such
questioned signatures mark Q and standard signatures mark S1 and S2 of
Gurmail Singh were in the handwriting of one and the same person. He
further opined that questioned writing Q2 and standard writing S5 and S6 are
in the handwriting of one and the same person. He proved his report as
Ex.DW4/A, negatives Ex.DW4/B1 to Ex.DW4/B8, photographic charts
Ex.DW4/C and Ex.DW4/D.
7. Based on the evidence led, the accused/petitioner came to be
convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Phillaur vide judgment and order of sentence dated 13.12.2007 as under:-
Offence under Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default
Section of payment of
fine
138 NI Act RI for 01 years Rs.1500/- RI for 01 month
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005188
CRR-3153-2010 (O&M) -5-
8. The accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be
dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide
judgment dated 17.11.2020.
9. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the
present petition.
10. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner contends that the
cheque was dated 07.05.2004 but the notice of accusation the date of such
cheque has been mentioned as 17.05.2004, thus vitiating the trial. He
contends that the Courts below wrongly drew a presumption under Section
139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque had been issued for the
discharge of a legally enforceable debt despite the presumption having been
rebutted by way of defence evidence. The evidence of DW4-Arvind Sood,
the handwriting and finger print expert had not been considered in its proper
perspective by the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court. He lastly
contends that as against the cheque amount of Rs.3,20,000/-, a sum of
Rs.1,60,000/- had already been deposited before this Court vide order dated
14.03.2012 because of which the sentence of the accused/petitioner had been
suspended and as such, in view of the fact that the cheque was dated
07.05.2004, the impugned judgment of conviction was passed on 13.12.2007
and the appeal had been dismissed on 17.11.2010, the sentence of the
accused/petitioner could be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant
contends that the offence stood established beyond reasonable doubt. A
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005188
CRR-3153-2010 (O&M) -6-
typographical error in the date of the cheque in the notice of accusation was
not sufficient to reverse the finding of guilt. The presumption that the cheque
had been issued for a legally enforceable debt had not been rebutted. The
report of DW4-Arvind Sood had little relevance as the accused/petitioner had
admitted that the cheque had been signed by him. He, therefore, contends
that the present revision petition was liable to be dismissed.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
13. Apparently, the accused/petitioner was aware that he was being
prosecuted for dishonour of the Cheque No.0452797 dated 07.05.2004
(Ex.C1). The said cheque number is mentioned in the notice of accusation.
The accused/petitioner was very well-aware that he was being prosecuted for
the dishonour of cheque in question at every stage including while recording
his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The date of the dishonour of the
cheque was correctly put to him. Therefore, that there has been absolutely no
failure of justice on account of this typographical error. Further, the defence
evidence as led is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of the cheque
having been issued in the discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The report
of DW4-Arvind Sood has little relevance once the signatures on the cheque
were admitted by the accused/petitioner to be his. I may also add here that
during the course of arguments, opportunities were given to the
accused/petitioner to adequately compensate the complainant/his LRs but the
accused/petitioner refused to do so.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005188
CRR-3153-2010 (O&M) -7-
14. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present revision
petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
15.01.2025
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
7 of 7
