MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

.1. On a complaint C.C. 343/1 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Col. S.S. Choudhary (complainant) petitioner in Crl.Rev.P.666/2007, the Magistrate vide order dated 15.05.2005 held the accused Avtar Singh (petitioner in Crl.Rev.P.596/2007) guilty and directed him to undergo SI for one year and to pay double the amount of cheque towards compensation i.e. Rs.6,95,000/-, as the dishonoured cheque was for Rs.3,50,000/-. This order was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who while upholding the conviction modified the sentence by converting the SI to RI for one year but also ordered that no compensation shall be paid by the accused. The precise reason given for the same was that during the pendency of these proceedings the parties entered into a settlement by which, the accused paid a cheque of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant as a compromise but the said cheque was also dishonoured. The complainant also filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs based upon the dishonoured cheque which suit has been decreed in his favour but according to the complainant no payment has been received so far.

2. The accused, Col.Avtar Singh, is questioning the order of the Additional Sessions Judge in upholding the conviction; whereas in other revision the complainant, is aggrieved on account of modification of the sentence by not granting compensation as ordered by the Magistrate vide order dated 19.05.2005.

3. Briefly stating the case against the accused, Col. Avtar Singh, is that he was a friend of complainant and had taken a friendly loan in the sum of Rs. 5 lakh from the complainant in October, 1996 for a period of six months. After the expiry of the period, the complainant requested the accused to return the loan and in part discharge of the said liability, the accused issued a cheque in question dated 12.6.1998 for a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh in favour of the complainant. The said cheque on presentation was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 13.8.1998 by registered post and/or receipt and the same was returned back unserved with a report “not met” on 17.9.2000, 18.9.2000 and 19.9.2000. The legal notice was also sent to the residential and official address of the accused through UPC but the amount of dishonoured cheque was not paid. On these accusations, the complaint was filed and after pre-summoning evidence, the accused was summoned. A notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty.

.4. In order to prove its case, the complainant examined himself as CW-1. He examined CW-2 S.K. Garg the official from Canara Bank which is the bank of complainant. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded and the accused examined himself as DW-1 and testified, that complainant requested the accused for advancing a loan as a help of Rs. 15,00,000/- to start his work at Delhi being known to him being together in NDA. Although he shown his inability to pay such a huge amount, however, he issued a cheque of Rs. 3.5 lakhs as a loan to the complainant and not to discharge any debt or liability of the complainant. Accused further testified that it was agreed that the cheque would be presented after confirmation. However, the complainant became dishonest and without confirmation presented the cheque, without serving a legal notice upon him because from July, 1998 to November, 1998, he was in Orissa with his wife. The accused also examined DW-2 Suresh Pandey. He testified that on 12.6.1998 when he and Hafiz were sitting at the office of the accused, complainant had come and stated that he needed Rs. 15 lacs urgently, the accused had told him that he cannot give this amount, however, he can give three/three and a half lacs and that he had to go Orissa. Thereafter, the complainant told that he may give the cheque right

Click Here to Read the rest of this document