The presumption of a cheque being issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 N.I.A. and the significance of a security cheque in commercial transactions were central to the court's decision.

ORDER

Vikas Bahl, J. -

CRM-37931-2022

1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 51 days in filing the accompanying revision petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and delay of 51 days in filing the accompanying revision petition is condoned.

CRR-2103-2022

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 25.01.2018 vide which the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'N.I.A.') and had sentenced the petitioner as under:-

'The interest of justice would be met if the convict Surinder Rai is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year for commission of offence punishable under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Further ends of justice would be best served, if the convict is directed to pay compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pankaj Bhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 2001(1) CCJ 119 has held that -the Magistrate has power to allow any sum as compensation under S.357(3) Cr.P.C. The convict is directed to pay compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to complainant of amount equivalent to the cheque amount i.e. 2,81,000/- within period of one month of expiry of period prescribed for appeal, or its disposal, if any. It is ordered accordingly. The period of imprisonment/detention already undergone by the convict, if any, during the trial of this case shall be set-off against the substantive sentence under S.428 of Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room, Chandigarh.

Pronounced in open court on this, 25th Day of January, 2018."

Challenge is also to the order dated 11.05.2022 vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised two arguments to challenge the said judgments. The first argument raised is that the brother of the petitioner had entered into a partnership with the complainant and at the time of entering into the said partnership, the present petitioner had given a blank signed cheque for the purpose of security and the said cheque was not issued for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt. The second argument, which has been raised, is that although, as per the case of the complainant, the loan amount which was given by the complainant was to the tune of Rs.3 lacs, whereas the cheque in question was issued for an amount of Rs.2,81,000/- and the said fact would show that the case set up by the complainant is false inasmuch as, no one would issue a cheque for an amount of Rs.2,81,000/- in case the loan given was for an amount of Rs.3 lacs.

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

4. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I.A. against the present petitioner on the averments that the petitioner and the complainant had a family relationship and in the first week of July 2013, the petitioner had approached the complainant and had requested the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs.3 lacs and on his request, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.3 lacs to the petitioner as a friendly loan in the third week of July, 2013 and the petitioner had agreed to return the same within a short period of two months and after the said period was over, the petitioner had failed to return the said amount and after much persuasion by the complainant, the petitioner had issued cheque bearing no.938724 dated 20.10.2013 amounting to Rs.2,81,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Sector 9 D, Chandigarh in favour of the complainant and assured that the same would be encashed on its presentation. The cheque was accordingly presented for encashment but the same was dishonoured with the remarks 'funds insufficient' vide memo dated 23.12.2013. The complainant had then served legal notice dated