Page 1 of 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR-740-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 17.05.2023

JASWANT SINGH

…Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Present :

Dr. Rau P.S. Girwar, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Kapoor, A.A.G., Punjab.

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been filed under

Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Cr.P.C.’) for

setting aside of the judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act (for short `the N.I. Act’) as well as the order of

sentence dated 28.10.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Bathinda. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the judgment

dated 03.01.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda; whereby, the

appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 28.10.2021; was dismissed.

2.

Briefly, respondent No.2-complainant filed a complaint under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act and 420 of

the IPC, by alleging that the petitioner herein had been purchasing coal

from respondent No.2-complainant on credit/cash basis from time to time

and had been making the payments from time to time. It was averred that in

the month of May/June, 2015, the present petitioner purchased coal for his

brick kiln on credit basis for Rs.5,87,100/- and he made a partial payment

GURPREET KAUR

2023.07.03 14:46

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Page 2 of 13

to the tune of Rs.1,07,000/- during this period and an amount of

Rs.4,80,100/- was outstanding against the petitioner and in discharge of his

lawful existing liability, he issued a cheque bearing No.005170 dated

03.08.2016 for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- in favour of respondent No.2-

complainant from his account maintained with `Axis Bank Limited’,

Chandigarh Branch with the assurance that the same would be honoured

upon its presentation. However, when the said cheque was presented for

encashment, the same was dishonoured vide Memo dated 12.10.2016 with

the remarks “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, respondent No.2-complainant

got issued a legal notice dated 09.11.2016 upon the petitioner herein and

upon failure to make the payment within the stipulated period, the afore-

said complaint was filed.

3.

In the preliminary evidence, respondent No.2-complainant

(Om Parkash) appeared as CW-1 and tendered documents Exhibits C-1 to

C-4 and after considering the same, the petitioner was summoned and

subsequently, notice of accusation was served upon him vide order dated

25.03.2019, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4.

After service of notice of accusation upon the petitioner,

respondent No.2-complainant appeared as CW-1 and was cross-examined.

He further tendered attested copies of ledger entries Ex. C-5 and Ex. C-6

and closed his evidence.

5.

After closure of evidence of respondent No.2-complainant, the

statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.;

wherein, he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. The

petitioner submitted that he did not purchase any coal from respondent

No.2-complainant/firm because his license No.824 had been expired on

24.01.2015 and then he stopped his brick-kiln and after that, no transaction

GURPREET KAUR

2023.07.03 14:46

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Page 3 of 13

was held between respondent No.2/complainant and the petitioner. A

further stand was taken that one Rajesh Kumar was partner of

Dharam Singh, who is the son of the petitioner and it was Rajesh Kumar,

who had taken the cheque in question from the Office of his son Dharam

Singh and handed over the same to respondent No.2-