Dishonor of Cheque – Power of Attorney Holder – Merely because the name of branch manager of the bank has not been mentioned in the authorization issued prior to filing of complaint, it cannot be held fatal to the case and complainant-bank.

Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J. - The petitioner-accused has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 20.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby his appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2017 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha in Complaint Case No.32 dated 04.02.2013 titled as Punjab National Bank, Nabha Versus M/s Ramgarhia Agri. Engg. Works, Nabha, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent No.2-complainant Punjab National Bank, Nabha had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act) against the petitioner-accused. As per the complaint, on 02.12.2009, the petitioner had availed a cash credit limit facility to the tune of Rs.10 lakh from the bank for the purpose of manufacturing combines. This limit was enhanced on 02.07.2010 from Rs.10 lakh to Rs.17 lakh. The petitioner executed necessary documents in favour of the complainant-bank and agreed to pay interest as per the bank norms. In discharge of his legal liability, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.501179 dated 03.01.2013 for a sum of Rs.17,90,393/- from his account No.1914 to be drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Nabha. However, on presentation of the cheque by the complainant-bank, the cheque was dishonoured vide memo dated 05.01.2013 with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. After dishonouring of the cheque, the complainant-bank issued a legal notice to the petitioner-accused on 09.01.2013 and the same was sent by way of registered post on 10.01.2013. The notice was duly served, but still the petitioner failed to make the payment. Hence, the complaint.

3. Vide order dated 20.03.2013 passed by learned Magistrate, the petitioner-accused was summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The accused appeared in the Court and notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Act was served upon him to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. In support of its case, the complainant-bank examined Krishan Gopal Garg, Branch Manager as CW1. He reiterated the version of the complainant-bank, as put forth in the complaint. Ashwani Kumar, Clerk was examined as CW2 to prove the sending of the legal notice. Jagdev Singh Sharma, the then Manager of the bank, before whom the accused had signed the documents was also examined as CW3. The complainant-bank also tendered into evidence the documents i.e. cheque bearing No.501179 dated 03.01.2013 as Ex.C1, memo of Bank of Baroda as Ex.C2, copy of notice as Ex.C3, postal receipt as Ex.C4, acknowledgement as Ex.C5, general power of attorney in favour of CW1 as Ex.C6, account statement of accused as Ex.C7, copy of the hypothecation agreement as Ex.C8 and Ex.C9.

5. Thereafter, statement of the petitioner-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against him was put to him. The accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his innocence and false implication. He had taken a plea that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The complainant-bank has misused the blank cheque obtained by them before granting the limit as a security. However, in defence, no evidence was led by the petitioner-accused.

6. Vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2017, learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and vide separate order dated 31.05.2017 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and compensation equivalent to the cheque amount.

7. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2017 passed by learned trial Court was made subject matter of appeal before the Court of Session. However, the appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 20.12.2017 upholding the sentence and compensation. The relevant observations of learned appellate Cou