Ram Asra v. Balwinder Singh
2023:PHHC:107882
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.07.2023 Ram Asra .....Petitioner
Versus
Balwinder Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Vikram Jeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
CRM No.26700 of 2023 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking condonation of delay of 73 days in filing the instant revision petition.
For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 73 days in filing the present revision petition is hereby condoned.
This is a revision petition at the behest of convict challenging his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court.
2.
Complaint was filed against the petitioner after cheque issued by him was dishonoured for insufficient funds. After analyzing the
evidence threadbare the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him as under :
!"
# $% !
& %' 3.
In the appeal preferred by the petitioner the judgment of conviction was attacked claiming that the Trial Court erred in relying upon a shaky evidence and that the cheque in question was a forged and fabricated document without any consideration and that the notice and the complaint were not within the period of limitation. While attacking order of sentence it was claimed that the Trial Court erred in imposing fine equal to the cheque amount. The Appellate Court found that there is not even a suggestion put to the complainant in his cross-examination that the cheque in dispute does not bear signatures of the accused.
Only suggestion is that the complainant took blank cheque from the accused and then filled the amount without producing any defence evidence to demonstrate the purpose for which the blank cheque was handed over to the complainant. Thus, the plea of the cheque being forged and fabricated cannot even be looked into and moreover there is no averment as to in which manner the cheque was forged and fabricated. The Court further found that the cheque was dated 19th of May, 2015 which was returned for 'insufficient funds' by the bank vide memo dated 1st of June, 2015.
of June, 2015 and the complaint was instituted on 20th of July, 2015. Thus, there is no reason to hold that the complaint was barred by limitation and was in fact a validly instituted complaint in compliance with the procedure as laid down under Section 142 of the N.I. Act. 4.
Counsel for the petitioner has raised a solitary contention before this Court claiming that the same has been passed in the absence of the accused as well as his counsel. Reliance has been placed upon zimini orders which shows that the presence of the appellant/accused was being tried to be procured through Non-bailable Warrants and has tried to explain the absence of the petitioner by relying upon pleadings raised in Para Nos.11 and 12 of the revision petition which read as under : (
) % %
%*$
* %
%+% "
$$+ $%% , +!
&%+ '%!
! !!
!
% $%%
%
+ - - %+ .$
!'
, "
++ $$% "
% % $$+ %++ # / 0 $%% !
% + ,
+ !
1 !
%*
* ' !
$$+%%
2*$%
% $ + $$ !% "+ & '* % !
+
$%%
%+!
$$+%%
%!
$ $ !
3! $$++
++ ,!
* !
$ + $$
$%% , 2*$!
) $%% ++!
%
+
%* 2 !
$$+ !
$%% , +!
&
! % 4 / $%% "% % !
%
+
&*% $$+%%
4
2*$%
% $ + $$ ,
% "
* '%+ ) & '* % !
+
$%% !
%* $$+%%
++ &
%+!
4
' % "
4 $%% ++!
%
+
"% "
"!% "
2 !
% $$+ ) +5
* % !
+ +!
$%% $$+%%
,
%+!
!
* & ++ ,!
+ ) $%% , +
$$%!
& +5
% & '%!
+ %
1 %!
$$ %
% $
, % $ ,%++ & 1 %! ,%++ & % %*!
!% "+ - &1 + $%% ++!
%
%!
+ * %*
%* &
' %* , +!
++ & %
*!
, ' % $ ,%++ & 1 %! ) $%%
! & %! !'%
%
+ !% "+ ,%!
$+
%
+ % +
$%
* %
$%% ' %'!
%
** % %
%++% "
$$+ $
! !!
% &% "
$$ !!
) + %
% ,5
+ + $ +% '%%!
$%% % % & !
5!
% , &
* %
*%+ **& !
, $%% *
, &
% % 1 %!
"!% "
!
++!
%
+ &
+ $%%
& "%' % $+ !
, +!
& %
+ 7 !
, , $$ !
%
$$+ & !
$$!
'
+!
!
7 8+%*+ $%% % 1 %!
"
!%" !
+ !
+ *
, % $$+ & !%*%!
0 % % & 9 5.
Further reliance has been placed upon law laid down in the case of Shankar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019(3) RCR(Criminal) 948 and that laid down in Subedar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021(1) AICLR 2018 to submit that once the appellant and his counsel were not
found to be present it was the duty of the Appellate Court either to appoint an amicus or to nominate a counsel through Legal Services Authority and hear the matter on merits and then dispose off the appeal. 6.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through records of the case.
7.
The plea being raised by counsel for the petitioner is against the record. Bare perusal of the judgment passed by Trial Court shall reveal that it was not only passed in presence of his counsel but also shows that each and every contention raised by his counsel has been noticed and dealt with by the Appellate Court. Thus the petitioner cannot be allowed to rely upon the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Shankar vs. State of Maharastra (supra). Once the petitioner who was being represented through his able counsel who was engaged by him only, process of law cannot be allowed to be defeated and made hostage to a ploy deployed by the accused who deliberately absents himself at the stage of final arguments in the appeal. Resultantly, the contention raised by counsel for the appellant is rejected.
8.
So far as the present revision petition is concerned, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited and the same can be invoked only where there is an error of law on the part of the Trial Judge. Finding it that the Courts below arrived on assessment of
the evidence and the concurrent finding of the fact that the petitioner admitted his signatures on the cheque leaf, the cheque was dishonoured for 'insufficient funds', the complaint was filed well within a period of limitation after the petitioner failed to respond to the statutory notice and there being nothing on record to show that the aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below are in any way punctuated by cloud of doubt, this Court finds that it is not a fit case to exercise revisional jurisdiction. 9.
Consequently, the present criminal revision petition is dismissed.
July 14, 2023 (PANKAJ JAIN) Dpr JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No