Appellate court cannot confirm conviction under NI Act s.138 and remit solely for resentencing; must decide additional evidence applications; magistrate may impose fines exceeding CrPC s.29 limit via NI Act s.143. Revisional jurisdiction limited to jurisdictional errors.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, Distt. Chamba, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tissa, District Chamba, H.P (learned Trial Court) was upheld, the order of sentence dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court was set- aside and the matter was remitted to the learned Trial Court for passing an appropriate sentence, and the order of sentence dated 15.01.2025 which was passed by the learned Trial Court after the remand. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (In short, 'NI Act'). It was asserted that the accused had undertaken the construction work of the Jio Network Tower in District Chamba. The complainant supplied labour for the construction of the tower w.e.f. 23.02.2018 till 15.04.2018. He paid Rs.2,22,000/- to the labourers. The accused paid Rs.72,000/- in cash and issued a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn at Punjab National Bank, Kasumpti, Shimla to reimburse the money paid by the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque to the bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. The complainant served a notice upon the accused, asking him to repay the amount to the complainant. Notice was duly served upon the accused, but he failed to repay the amount. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per law.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined himself (CW1) and Munish Kumar (CW2) to prove his case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, admitted that he had constructed the Jio Network Tower, the complainant had provided three labourers to him, and he had engaged them w.e.f. 23.02.2018 till 15.04.2018. He denied the rest of the complainant's case. He asserted that an agreement was executed between him and the complainant. He paid Rs.50,000/- in cash to the complainant. He had demanded 10-15 labourers from the complainant, as a minimum of 10 labourers were required to carry out the work. The complainant sent 3-4 labourers. The complainant demanded Rs.50,000/- for the supply of the remaining labour. He paid Rs.50,000/- to the complainant through the bank account. The labour was supplied, who worked for one month, but thereafter, the supply was stopped. He paid Rs.72,000/- in cash to the complainant and gave a blank security cheque to the complainant. The complainant failed to pay the money to the labourers, and they filed a case before the Labour Court at Chamba. Bhag Singh paid money to them. He examined Divesh Mandala (DW1), Bhag Singh (DW2) and Rishab Chaudhary (DW3