High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/1952/2023dismissed

Raj Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

2023-11-16Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 16.11.2023 Raj Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Mayur Kakkar, Advocate for the respondent.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

Accused is in revision. Challenge is to the judgment dated 11th of July, 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot dismissing the appeal filed by the accused/petitioner against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th of February, 2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot, whereby the petitioner has been found to be guilty for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and has been burdened with fine of Rs.5000/-.

The petitioner was summoned to face trial on complaint made

by respondent after a cheque issued by him bearing No.632723 dated 3rd of January, 2017 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Faridkot was dishonoured on 1st of March, 2017 for 'insufficient funds'. The petitioner was put to trial. After analyzing the entire evidence threadbare the Trial Court found that the signatures on the cheque leaf were not disputed. The defence was that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any liability. Two witnesses were examined i.e. wife of the accused DW1 and his uncle DW2. The main thrust was on the claim that the accused has in fact repaid the entire amount of loan to the complainant along with interest in installments and his security cheques have been misused by the complainant. Trial Court found that the probable defence sought to be raised by the accused had no existence and held the petitioner guilty. In appeal the said judgment stands affirmed by the Appellate Court. 3.

Ld. Counsel representing the petitioner has strongly relied upon the reply submitted by the petitioner to the statutory legal notice sent on the instruction of the complainant wherein the defence being projected before the Trial Court was specifically raised. Counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to reappreciate the entire evidence and has not been able to show any glaring error of law that can persuade this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code.

Law w.r.t. exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court already stands settled by the Apex Court in Thankappan Nadar vs. Gopala Krishnan (2002) 9 SCC 393, wherein it has been held as

under :

"6. In a revision application filed by the de facto complainant against the acquittal order, the court's jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is limited. The law on the subject is well settled. Instead of referring to various judgments, we would only refer to few decisions rendered by this Court. In Akalu Ahir and Others v. Ramdeo Ram,(1973) 2 SCC 583 this Court has (in SCC pp.587-88, para 8) observed thus:

!! ( %&

! "

)! ) !( %&

! "

! * ( %&

+ %&

!*) "

, " *

))

-!)

%. ), // )

))

# "

) !

) !*)

))

! )

" 2+

" ) , 3

! ,

%4*)

&5 5.

In Raj Kumar vs. State of H.P., (2008) 11 SCC 76, Apex Court held that :

- *

!! "

"! "

! "

" "

! )

))!

!, ' "

. 8 "

! "

" "

9 ))! *

))

) *

! "

" "

!! .)*

, /,

# $

" !

. 8 " -!

. 8 ", .

' (

# ) **+

, -,

) -!

!!"

#!, 3

) $ )

# !, ;

)))

9 ))!

!* *

" !

* " *!

#!,

!! ,

!, "

-!"

# !,5 6.

Further, Apex Court in State Rep. By The Drugs Inspector vs. Manimaran (2019) 13 SCC 670 held as under : "15.................When there is concurrent findings by the courts below, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is different from the appellate jurisdiction. The High court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, unless the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below is perverse or that the court has ignored the material evidence while arriving at that finding. As held in State of Kerala v.

Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452, ordinarily it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as by the Sessions court in appeal. When the courts below recorded the concurrent findings of fact, in our view, the High Court was not right in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below and the impugned order cannot be sustained."

In view of above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the present revision petition in the absence of there being any glaring error of law. Resultantly, the present revision petition is dismissed. November 16, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No