The liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is strict, and the nature of the cheque does not absolve the accused from responsibility for dishonour.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner-Naveen Kumar Chauhan has approached this Court, by way of revision, for setting aside the judgment dated 13.09.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’).

2. By way of the judgment dated 13.09.2012, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.17/11, preferred by petitioner-Naresh Kumar Chauhan, against the judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2011 and order of sentence dated 31.05.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Complaint No.9 of 2006, titled as ‘Vipan Kumar versus Naveen Kumar Chauhan’.

3. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence as referred to above, petitioner-Naresh Kumar Chauhan has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) and he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay amount of Rs.38,500/-, as compensation to the complainant.

4. Parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to as, in the same manner, as were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

5. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision before this Court, as emerge from the record are as under:-

6. Complainant-Vipan Kumar has filed complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, regarding Cheque No.639859, dated 25.08.2005, for a sum of Rs.25,000/- drawn on the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited Manali, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred as ‘cheque in question’).

7. According to the complainant, parties are known to each other and due to cordial relations, on demand, complainant had paid Rs.25,000/-, and in order to return the said amount, a Cheque in question, amounting to Rs.25,000/-, as referred to above, was issued by the accused. The cheque in question, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured by the banker of the accused, on the ground that the person, who had issued the cheque, was not having sufficient funds, in his account. Thereafter, the complainant had issued statutory notice demanding the amount of cheque. Despite service of the notice of demand, neither the said notice was replied, nor the amount was paid. Consequently, complainant has filed the complaint, under Section 138 of the NI Act, before the learned trial Court.

8. In the said complaint, after securing the presence of the accused, notice of accusation was put to him on 13.01.2009, to which, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the complainant was directed to adduce evidence. Consequently, the accused had led evidence. After the closure of the evidence of the complainant, the entire incriminating evidence appearing against the accused, was put to him, in his statement, recorded, under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., on 03.05.2010. The accused had denied the entire case, as set up against him. He had taken the plea that the complainant had manipulated the post dated cheque. In his defence, he has examined DW-1, Prem Chand.

9. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for complainant, as well as, accused had convicted the accused, vide judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2011 and vide order of sentence dated 31.05.2011, he has been sentenced, as aforesaid.

10. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, the accused had preferred the appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which also been dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2012.

11. Now, the accused is before this Court, in criminal revision. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been sought to be set-aside, mainly, on the ground that the cheque in question was a security cheque, as such, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to convict the accused, in this case.

12. The scope of revision has elaborately been explained by the