Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 971 (PNJ)

Naveen Kumar Dubey v. State of Punjab

2014-06-30

REKHA MITTAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.: - Through the present petition, Naveen Kumar Dubey (convict) has assailed the judgments passed by the Courts below whereby he has been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (in short “the Act”) for dishonour of cheque No. 149773 dated 20.09.2009 in the sum of Rs.1 lac. 2. Counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to concede that there is no substantial ground available to the petitioner to assail concurrent findings of fact in regard to culpability of the petitioner for the offence charged against him. However, it is submitted that the sentence awarded may be allowed to run concurrently with the sentence awarded to the petitioner in complaint No.16 of 2009 decided on 17.08.2012 and complaint No.89-A of 2009 decided on even date, subject matter of Criminal Revision No.2880 of 2013 and 2877 of 2013. It is argued that liability of the petitioner qua payment of Rs.1 lac had also arisen out of same transaction, subject matter of the aforesaid cases. 3. Counsel for respondent No.2, on the contrary, contends that loan taken by the petitioner amounting to Rs.1.5 lacs in discharge whereof he issued two cheques bearing No.149772 dated 15.09.2009 in the sum of Rs.1 lac and cheque No.427862 dated 02.10.2009 of the value of Rs.50,000/- has nothing do do with the loan transaction of Rs.1 lac in August, 2009 in regard whereof, the petitioner issued cheque No.149773 dated 20.09.2009, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. to seek concurrent running of sentence with the sentence awarded in the other two cases. It is further argued that the petitioner from time to time availed financial assistance from the respondent taking advantage of his friendly relationship but failed to honour his commitment to repay the loan amount and different cheques issued by the petitioner got dishonoured on its presentation to the bank. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. The petitioner was awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- with default stipulation. The sentence was reduced to a period of 9 months by the Court in appeal. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. The petitioner was awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- with default stipulation. The sentence was reduced to a period of 9 months by the Court in appeal. I have gone through the averments set out by the complainant in the instant case as well as in the other two cases pending in the Court. The mere fact that two loans were availed by the petitioner in the same month is not sufficient to infer much less conclude that the liability in the present proceedings has arisen out of the same transaction, subject matter of criminal revision No.2880 of 2013 and 2877 of 2013. In this view of the matter, I am unable to accept the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner that substantive sentence awarded in the present case can be allowed to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in the other two cases pertaining to the aforesaid criminal revisions pending in this Court. 6. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————