Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1893 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar v. Ajit Singh

2017-08-24

PARDEEP NANDRAJOG

body2017
JUDGMENT Pardeep Nandrajog, C.J. - On 14/03/1995 complainant Suresh Kumar submitted an ''istgasa'' (complaint) in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City to the effect that accused-respondent No. 1 Ajit Singh tendered a Cheque dated 27/01/1995 for the sum of rs. 90,000/- of SBI, Tonk Road, Jaipur in favour of complainant-petitioner Suresh Kumar, which on presentation in the Allahabad Bank, Jaipur on 28/01/1995 got dishonoured on account of the account being closed. Complainant thereupon served a legal notice upon the accused but when no heed was paid to the said notice, complainant submitted complaint in the court and the court after recording statements under section 200 Cr.P.C., 1973 initiated the complaint proceedings. 2. The learned trial court framed the charge for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which he denied and claimed trial. 3. In support of his complaint, complainant Suresh Kumar examined himself as PW1 and S.K. Sharma as PW2 and got exhibited six documents. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and in rebuttal, the accused exhibited six documents and got examined witness Dilip Kumar as DW1. 4. On 19/09/2001, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City convicted the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to 6 months RI with a fine of rs. 1 lac. 5. Accused Ajit Singh challenged the order dated 19/09/2001 by filing appeal in the court of learned court of sessions, who committed the case to the court of learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Notes) Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur for hearing on the ground that after settlement he has issued a blank cheque to the complainant in lieu of security, which was misused by the complainant. Hence, no case under the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against him. 6. The appeal filed by the accused was allowed on 06/04/2002 by the appellate court and set-aside the order of the trial Court dated 19/09/2001 on the premise that there is no material on record either documentary or oral so as to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The entire due amount was already paid to the complainant which itself has been accepted by the complainant in documents Exh.D.1 & Exh.D.2. 7. Aggrieved by this order dated 06/04/2002, the complainant-petitioner filed this revision petition. 8. The entire due amount was already paid to the complainant which itself has been accepted by the complainant in documents Exh.D.1 & Exh.D.2. 7. Aggrieved by this order dated 06/04/2002, the complainant-petitioner filed this revision petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 9. In the present case, complainant PW1 Suresh Kumar has stated in his cross-examination that the amount stated in the Exh.D.1 and Exh.D.2 was of his brother Harish Kumar and said amount was not connected with disputed cheque Ex.P.1. But it is pertinent to mention herein that in his cross-examination he has admitted that except for the said amount of rs. 90,000/-, there was no money dispute between him and the accused. Furthermore, he has also admitted in his cross-examination that on arising of dispute regarding said money between him and the accused, the document Ex.D.2 was scribed by his brother Harish Kumar on his behalf and at that time he was also present and he did not oppose the same. But to corroborate his above-said version, he has not examined Harish Kumar. He further admitted that on Exh.D.2 from A-B, signatures were of his brother Harish Kumar. From the above-said statements it is revealed that Exh.D.1 and Exh.D.2 were scribed in his presence and that the contents of the said documents regarding his dues were in his knowledge. This fact is further corroborated from the statement of DW1 Dilip Singh wherein he has clearly stated that full and final settlement was arrived at between the complainant and the accused. 10. In the light of the above-said discussion, the judgment passed by the learned appellate court does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 11. Thus, this revision petition is dismissed.