Chander Monga v. Narinder Singh And Another
!"#$$% CHANDER MONGA ....Petitioner vs.
NARINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Respondent
# &' $ ( ) (
Present:
Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate, for the petitioner. ) ( $ *+, By way of present revision petition challenge has been made to judgment dated 27.01.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2016 passed by SDJM, Abohar, convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 1⁄2 year along with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, has been upheld. The facts of the case are that a cheque bearing No.001946 dated 20.01.2014 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-/- was issued at the instance of petitioner, in favour of complainant/respondent No.1 to repay the amount outstanding against him. Since the cheque was dishonoured, therefore, a criminal complaint bearing No.NACT531-2014 dated 12.03.2014 came to be filed against the petitioner resulting into conviction, besides awarding the aforementioned sentence.
Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed first appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 27.01.2020 upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Challenging the aforesaid judgments, present revision petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the cheque in question was given as security on account of loan taken by one Vikramjeet Singh from the complainant, which has been misused and therefore, there was no legally enforceable debt against him. Further, an effort has also been made to question the financial capability of the complainant as well.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book. I find no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were considered and rejected by the trial court upon discussion of entire evidence in detail in the following manner:
"
! "# $% & '
$
'
! ( )*
+
$
( #
' ,
'
, (& # $ - .$/
$
% #
/
/ % $/0% 1, +
/
, 0 0% 1, 2# / #
,
3 '
#
'
'
$/
4 / % $/ 0% 1,
5
$/
, 0 0% 1,
%#
/
$
% 6
4 '
0% 1 , # 78
% $/ '
/ % $/0% 1 , 8
0% 1, $
'
$/
4 4
'
0% 1,
, / '
#
'
/
$
#
, (9
, & $ - ."
5
$/ ' ! "#-
'
#
/
:! "#
$
# /!
;
$/ #! #(
$ $/
'
#! ,
1
/ ' ! "# ,
// 7 Despite of specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, neither he has been able to explain the observation made by the Court below, nor he has been able to point out any material brought on record to substantiate his contentions. From the evidence available on record, the respondent-complainant has duly proved his financial capacity. On the contrary, the petitioner having not disputed his signatures on the cheque, has failed to rebut the presumption attached to it. Thus, finding no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. Resultantly, the petitioner who failed to submit himself to the jursidction of the first appellate court at the time of final decision, be taken in custody, to undergo the period of sentence awarded to him. ( ) (
%
%"
< =
"
$ < =
"