Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2688 (PNJ)

Mohan Lal Sharma v. State of Punjab

2010-09-17

A.N.JINDAL

body2010
JUDGMENT A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein referred as 'the Act') vide judgment dated 30.11.2002, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nabha and his appeal was also dismissed on 16.07.2003. The facts, in nutshell, are that Surinder Kumar respondent-complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') preferred a complaint containing the facts that in the month of May, 2001, he had supplied 40,000 bricks to the accused vide bill No.617 and 618 dated 04.05.2001 & 05.5.2001 respectively against which in the month of October, 2001, the accused paid a sum of Rs.9,000/- to him and also handed over a cheque bearing No.176229 dated 21.11.2001, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Nabha, for a sum of Rs.41,015/-with the assurance that the cheque would be honoured on the due date i.e. 2111.2001. On presentation of the cheque, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Insufficient funds” and was returned to the complainant on 03.12.2001. Consequently, the complainant issued a notice on 18.12.2001 but to no response. Ultimately, he filed a complaint. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned and notice of accusation was issued to him. Thereafter, on completion of evidence of the complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations. In defence, he examined Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expect (DW1). The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Both the Courts below have returned the findings of fact that the accused had issued the cheque Ex.P4 for a sum of Rs.41,015/- for discharging legally enforceable liability and on tendering the cheque, the same was dishonoured and information in this regard was issued to the complainant by the Bank on 03.12.2001. Then the complainant issued notice to the accused on 18.12.2001 but the accused did not respond to the same. Besides examining himself as CW3, the complainant examined Pawan Kumar (CW1), Surjit Singh (CW2), Gopal Krishan (CW4) to prove the aforesaid documents. Nothing has been argued to challenge the findings returned by both the Courts below. The scope of interference in the concurrent findings, returned by both the Courts below is very restricted. Besides examining himself as CW3, the complainant examined Pawan Kumar (CW1), Surjit Singh (CW2), Gopal Krishan (CW4) to prove the aforesaid documents. Nothing has been argued to challenge the findings returned by both the Courts below. The scope of interference in the concurrent findings, returned by both the Courts below is very restricted. Nothing was pointed out in defect of the procedure or conduct of the trial which may result into failure of justice much less miscarriage of justice. The impugned judgment is well founded and well reasoned. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, this revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, for compliance.