IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

240 Date of decision: 27.01.2026 Darshan Singh ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS Manu Kant Khera and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for respondent No.1.

Mr. Ritu Raj Singh, AAG Punjab, respondent No.2.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib as well as the judgment dated 10.07.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2011 was dismissed. The revisionist-petitioner was sentenced as follows: -

.

2. Briefly summarized, the facts of the present case are that respondent No.1-complainant filed a complaint claiming that he is the sole proprietor of M/s Nanak Chand Ram Chand, New Grain Market (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Firm’), and is doing the business of Commission Agent. The complainant-Firm had been paying the sales tax and income tax and the documents were presented to the respective departments. The petitioner- accused used to sell the agricultural produce through the commission agency of the complainant and was also regularly obtaining loans. On 17.11.2004, the petitioner-accused took a loan of Rs.45,000/- and also settled the previous overdue amount to a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-. He obtained different advances over a period of time, and on 30.11.2004, the total amount was orally settled to Rs.4,00,000/-. The interest overdue on the said amount was Rs.2,14,967/-. Accordingly, the petitioner-accused is stated to have issued cheque No.228703 dated 14.11.2007 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sadar Bazar Branch, Sri Muktsar Sahib for a sum of Rs.6,14,967/- for encashment. However, on presentation, the cheque was dishonoured on account of “funds insufficient”. A legal notice dated 10.12.2007 was sent through registered A.D. On failure to pay the amount within the prescribed period, the above complaint was instituted.

3. Preliminary evidence was led by the complainant-respondent and on finding sufficient evidence, the petitioner was summoned for the commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 06.08.2008. Notice of acquisition was thereafter served upon him, to which he pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial.

4. In the evidence led by complainant-respondent No.1, he also examined Vijay Kumar, Clerk, Punjab National Bank, who deposed to the effect that the account of the petitioner-accused/Darshan Singh was maintained with their bank and brought the statements of the account of petitioner-accused from 01.04.2007 to 13.10.2007 and 25.03.2008, as well as the cheque return register, which were proved as Ex.C1 and C2. He also identified the signatures of the Firm, which had filed the complaint and deposed in the cross-examination that the Firm was represented by Surinder Kumar. Further, the respondent-complainant examined Satish Kumar son of Durga Dass, who tendered his affidavit and brought the original account books of the complainant-Firm. He deposed that he had been a Clerk/Munim with the Firm since 1996, that Manu Kant was the sole proprietor of the Firm and that the petitioner-accused used to sell the crop through the commission agency of the complainant and had also obtained loans. The financial transactions for which the cheque in question had been issued were also exhibited. Complainant-respondent No.1 also appeared in the witness box and swore an affidavit to the effect that he was the sole proprietor of the Firm and that the firm was engaged in the said business. The evidence of the complainant was closed thereafter.

5. The statement of the petitioner-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the allegations, contents of the complaint, the