HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

CRR-4031-2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 14.03.2023

****

Tajinder Singh

... Petitioner

VS.

Sanjeev Kumar &Anr.

... Respondents

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

****

Present:

Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner

****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner against the judgment dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Addl.

Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide which the respondent No.1 has been

acquitted.

As per allegations of the petitioner-complainant, in order to

discharge the standing liability, the accused issued a cheque No.656464 dated

10.07.2011 in the sum of Rs.70,000/- drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank

Limited, Phagwara. The accused also assured the petitioner-complainant that

he had sufficient funds and the cheque would be honoured on presentation.

The petitioner-complainant presented the abovesaid cheque in his bank i.e.

State Bank of Patiala, Hoshiarpur Road, Phagwara, for encashment, but the

same had been received back unpaid by petitioner-complainant alongwith

memo of the bank of the accused dated 10.03.2011 bearing remarks

“Insufficient funds”. The abovesaid cheque was dishonoured by the accused

knowingly and intentionally. Thereafter, the petitioner-complainant sent a

legal notice dated 20.07.2011 under registered cover and speed post to the

accused, requesting him to make the payment of the abovesaid cheque within

V VISHAL

2023.09.29 15:41

CRR-4031-2016

- 2 -

15 days from the receipt of the notice, but the accused failed to repay the

amount within stipulated period. Hence this complaint.

The trial court vide judgment and order dated 19.01.2015

convicted the respondent No.1 and sentenced to undergo RI for one year

under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Against the said judgment

and order, the respondent No.1-accused preferred appeal before the Addl.

Sessions Judge, Kapurthala who vide judgment dated 09.08.2016 set aside the

judgment and order of the trial court dated 19.01.2015 and acquitted the

respondent No.1 of the notice served upon him under Section 138 of the NI

Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner-complainant has filed this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant contended that

while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09.08.2016, the

appellate court has totally ignored the fact and evidence on the record that the

accused-respondent No.1 has admitted his signatures on the cheque in

question. While passing the impugned judgment of acquittal dated

09.08.2016, the Appellate Court has relied upon a Criminal Complaint (Ex.

DA) filed by the accused-respondent No.1 against some persons namely

Harpreet Singh, Jasbir Singh and Sukhdev Singh u/s 323, 365, 368, 342, 148,

149 of IPC, wherein the present accused-respondent No.1 has alleged that he

was beaten up and confined by the above said Harpeet Singh, Jasbir Singh

and Sukhdev Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that the present

complainant-petitioner Tajinder Singh is neither named in this criminal

complaint nor he is arrayed as accused in the said Criminal Complaint (Ex.

DA). Moreover, it has already been held by the trial Court that the Criminal

Complaint (Ex. DA) has been filed after issuance of the present cheque in

CRR-4031-2016

- 3 -

question. It has also been held by the trial Court that it has not been explained

by the accused respondent No.1 as to how the present complaint has been

filed just to pressurize to withdraw the above said complaint which is Ex.

DA.

It is further urged that the appellate court has not considered the

fact that though the accused-respondent No.1 has alleged that the cheque in

question was not issued to the present petitioner-complainant and the cheque

has been forged and fabricated, the accused-respondent No.1 has