The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of liability of the drawer of the cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the significance of security cheques in the commercial process.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - Challenge in the present Criminal Revision is to the judgment dated 02.01.2019, vide which, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala had convicted the present petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1881') as well as quantum of sentence dated 02.01.2019 vide which the petitioner had been sentenced as under:-

2. Challenge has also been made to the judgment dated 22.11.2021 vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioner had also been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Patiala.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance of order dated 17.05.2022 passed by this Court, the petitioner has surrendered and has further submitted that in the present case, execution proceedings are pending and thus, either the impugned judgments should be set aside or the sentence part should be reduced.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book.

5. It is not in dispute that complaint was filed by the complainant-Mohinder Singh (since deceased represented by his legal representative namely Jasvir Singh) by alleging that the agreement to sell dated 05.07.2012 had been entered into between the petitioner (seller) and the said Mohinder Singh with respect to selling the land measuring 46 bighas 14 biswas situated at Village Ramgarh Chhanna and an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and the date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 15.01.2013 and on the said date, the date was extended to 28.02.2013, for which, a separate writing was executed between the parties. It is further the case of the complainant that on 07.02.2013 on the request made by the present petitioner, the complainant had paid a further amount of Rs.6,25,000/- to the present petitioner towards earnest money and a writing regarding the same was also executed between the parties and when the petitioner expressed his inability on 28.02.2013 to execute the sale deed, the time for execution was further extended to 04.03.2013 and then to 06.05.2013, regarding which, separate writings were executed. It was found that as per jamabandi, the land in question was mortgaged with the bank but the petitioner had given an undertaking that he would get the land redeemed before execution of the sale deed and later on, it transpired that the petitioner was not exclusive owner of the said land and rather he was cosharer in the land measuring 132 bighas 15 biswas and he had already sold the land of his share to some other persons and large number of persons had filed suits against the petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that as per the settlement arrived at between the parties, double the amount of the earnest money had to be returned to the complainant and thus, when the petitioner refused to return the same, he filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,72,50,000/- against the petitioner on the basis of the said agreement and in the month of October, 2013, the petitioner had approached the complainant and offered to compromise the matter and issued a cheque dated 10.10.2013 for an amount of Rs.86,00,000/- and another cheque dated 17.10.2013 for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- both drawn on Axis Bank. However, the said cheques were dishonoured, and after the petitioner failed to make the payments despite the legal notice, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was filed.

6. The complainant-Mohinder Singh is since deceased and vide order dated 06.10.2016, Jasvir Singh