IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

231 Date of Decision: 13.02.2026 Harpreet Singh ......Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present: - Mr. Shwas Bajaj, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner.

Dr. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Manpreet Singh, Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 02.03.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the judgment of conviction dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala in case bearing Complaint No. 58114 titled as Karambeer Singh v Harpreet Singh has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant and the accused were on cordial terms and maintained friendly and visiting relations, founded upon mutual trust and confidence. Owing to certain urgent domestic exigencies, the accused approached the complainant seeking financial assistance in the sum of Rs.4,25,500/-. Reposing faith in the representation so made, the complainant advanced the said amount in cash to the accused in September, 2011 at Patiala. The accused is stated to have assured the complainant that the aforesaid amount would be repaid within a period of two months. However, upon failure to discharge the liability within the stipulated period and in discharge of his subsisting debt, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 024895 dated 12.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/-, drawn on Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, Branch The Mall, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala, in favour of the complainant. At the time of issuance of the cheque, the accused assured the complainant that sufficient funds were available in his account and that the cheque would be honoured upon presentation. Acting upon such assurance, the complainant accepted the cheque. In terms of the representation so made, the complainant presented the cheque for encashment. However, the same was returned unpaid by the banker of the accused vide return memo dated 13.12.2012, bearing the endorsement “Account Closed”. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 18.12.2012 to the accused, calling upon him to make payment of the cheque amount within the statutory period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. Despite service of the said notice, the accused failed to remit the amount in question. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present complaint came to be instituted.

3. On completion of the preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned vide order dated 08.04.2013 to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4. Notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Act was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the allegations levelled in the complaint, the complainant led evidence in support of his case. Upon conclusion of the complainant’s evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances put to him and alleged false implication.

5. After affording due opportunity of hearing to both sides and upon appreciation of the material available on record, the Magistrate returned a finding of guilt against the accused and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was accordingly sentenced him as under:

6. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence so passed have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgments on the following grounds:

(a) That both the Courts failed to consider and appreciate both the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the parties. It is submi