IMPORTANT POINT
Finding of fact recorded by Courts below cannot be disturbed.

Alok Singh, J.— Petitioner/revisionist Balwant Singh has challenged judgment dated 16.12.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ropar , by virtue of which, the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo CRR No.2880 of 2010(2) further SI for a period of one month, as well as, the judgment dated 20.9.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ropar, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned judgment was dismissed. Not satisfied with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by way of present revision petition.

2. In a nutshell, the facts for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner accused is the relative of the complainant; due to relationship, the complainant gave general power of attorney to the accused to sell his land situated in village Chintgarh. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the accused had sold the land of the complainant without his consent and free Will to one Gurmeet Singh. The complainant approached him to give, the sale price of the land. The accused issued cheque dated 23.5.2008 for a sum of Rs.13 lacs in favour of the complainant, which, on presentation in the Bank for its encashment, was returned back due to insufficient funds in the Bank in the name of the accused. Legal notice was served upon the accused-petitioner. Despite service of notice, petitioner failed to make payment of the’ cheque amount and hence, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. After preliminary evidence, petitioner was summoned by the Trial Court After closure of the evidence of CRR No.2880 of 2010(3) the complainant, statement of the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure ha stated that cheque in question was procured from him under police pressure. The petitioner did not lead any defence evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act as noticed above. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and in fact, it was incumbent upon the complainant to prove that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of his enforceable liability. He has further argued that the petitioner has not issued any cheque to the complainant and in fact, the cheque in question was procured from the accused under the pressure of the police when both the parties were called in Thana to settle the land transaction dispute, but the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate all these material points, and as such, the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside.

4. The stand of the petitioner is that the said cheque was procured under police pressure when both the parties CRR No.2880 of 2010(4) were called in Thana for settling the dispute of land transaction. Both the Courts below have recorded finding of fact that plea of the accused that cheque in question was procured by the complainant under the pressure of the police cannot be accepted because no complaint has ever been filed by the accused before the higher authorities to the effect that the complainant has procured the cheque in question under the pressure of the police; no application was ever moved by the accused to his bank stopping the payment stating that cheque was procured from him under the police pressure; accused has not replied the notice of the complainant stating that he has not issued any cheque willingly and same was procure