CIVIL APPEAL 694 of 2001 on 22 June 1995

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 694 of 2001

Date of decision: February 26, 2009Santokh Singh

... Petitioner

versus

Naresh Kumar

... Respondent

Coram:Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. JindalPresent:Mr. H.S. Bhuller, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J.

This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated16.2.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing theappeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as “the petitioner”), againstthe judgment dated 11.9.1997, convicting and sentencing him to undergorigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In nutshell, the facts as unfolded by the complainant are that hewas the sole Proprietor of the firm M/s Chawla Trading Company, ShahpurKandi, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and was holder of the cheque inquestion in due course. The respondent had purchased the cement worthRs.53,275/- and in order to discharge his liability, he had issued a chequebearing No.104753 dated 22.6.1995, drawn on State Bank of India, BungalBranch, Tehsil Pathankot for a sum of Rs.30,000/- from his account No.921.The said cheque was presented on 22.6.1995 and was dishonoured on26.6.1995, resultantly the complaint was filed on 27.10.1995.

After recording preliminary evidence, the petitioner wassummoned who pleaded not guilty to the notice and claimed to contest.

During evidence, the complainant had examined R.S. PathaniaClerk-typist (PW1), V.K. Raina, Accountant State Bank of India, Bungal,Balwant Singh (PW3) and he himself appeared as PW-4.

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while countering theallegations, he admitted having purchased the cement from the complainant.However, he explained that the payment was made by him in cash. Whileadmitting the issuance of the cheque, he disclosed that the cheque wasissued as security before getting the delivery of the cement, but the samewas misused by the complainant. He also denied if he had received notice.However, he denies his signatures on the acknowledgment (Ex.P7). Hefurther disclosed that he had given a blank cheque to the complainant butthe amount was filled by the complainant. He further stated that he hadmade payment in the presence of Bittu and that the complaint was false.

The trial ended in conviction and his appeal also failed. Hencethis petition.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

The only question raised before me is that the cheque waspresented on 22.6.1995 and was dishonoured on 26.6.1995 and thecomplaint having been filed on 27.10.1995 was not within limitation.

In this regard, it may be observed that after the cheque wasdishonoured on 26.6.1995, the same was again presented for encashmentbut it was again dishonoured on 28.9.1995 and thereafter notice was issuedon 30.9.1995. The said notice was served upon the petitioner on 7.10.1995as per acknowledgment (Ex.P7). The limitation to file the complaint couldcommence from the date of service of notice. In all probabilities, notice must have been served within 3-4 days, therefore, the complaint havingbeen filed within one month thereafter i.e. on 27.10.1995 cannot be said tobe barred by limitation. It has further been informed to me that thepetitioner has already undergone the entire sentence.

No other argument has been raised.

Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, no such defect,irregularity or illegality rendering miscarriage of justice has been pointedout or detected, therefore, no interference is called for.

Consequently, the instant petition being unmerited is dismissed.

February 26, 2008deepak

(A.N. Jindal)Judge