//

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 14.10.2025 HARJIT SINGH SIDHU ......Petitioner.

Vs.

SURJIT KUMAR SHARMA ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.

Ms. Mehak Sawhney, Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent.

***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 11.08.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the complaint case are that the accused/petitioner obtained a friendly loan of Rs.18.00 lacs for business purposes and on demand, he issued a cheque bearing No. 707637 dated 29.8.2009 in favour of the complainant/respondent, to discharge his liability. The complainant/respondent presented the cheque at the Punjab National Bank, branch Court Road, Patti, but the same was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds vide memo dated 26.02.2010. The complainant/respondent served a legal notice dated 22.03.2010 through his counsel, calling upon accused/petitioner to make the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. However, the accused/petitioner did not accept the notice with malafide intention and the same was received back with the report that the accused/petitioner had gone out of Punjab. The complainant/respondent led preliminary evidence and after considering such evidence, the accused/petitioner was summoned to face trial for the offence under section 138 of N.Ι. Act. On appearance of the accused/petitioner, a notice stating substance of accusation for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act was served upon accused/petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3 To prove his case, the complainant/respondent examined himself as CW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and further examined. Sh. R.K. Goel, Manager, Punjab National Bank as CW2, who tendered his affidavit Ex. CW2/A. Thereafter, the evidence on behalf of the complainant/respondent was closed.

4 The statement of the accused/petitioner was recorded under section 313 CrPC. He denied the allegation and pleaded false implication. The accused/petitioner took the specific plea that he along with the complainant/respondent-Surjit Kumar Sharma and Harjinder Singh were working in G.G. Dairy Ltd. Company as commission agent/ member/ cashier. The cheques were not issued by him and he had no concern with the complainant/respondent or Harjinder Singh. In defence, he examined himself as DW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. DW1/A and further examined Dilbagh Singh as DW2 and Balwinder Singh as DW3, who tendered their affidavits Ex. DW2/A and Ex. DW3/A. Thereafter, he closed his defence evidence after tendering some documents.

5. Based on the evidence led, the accused/petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced by the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti vide judgment and order of sentence dated 23.03.2013 as under:-

Offence under Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default of Section payment of fine

138 of NI Act RI 01 year Rs.2000/- RI 01 month

6. The accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran vide judgment dated 11.08.2014.

7. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present petition.

8. During the pendency of the instant revision petition, the sentence of the accused/petitioner was suspended vide order dated

31.10.2014.

9. The Amicus Curiae for the accused/petitioner contends that the accused/petitioner was working as a Cashier in M/s G.G. Dairy India where the complainant/respondent and one Harjinder Singh were working as commission agents. Two blank cheques which were taken by the accused/petitioner at the time of getting employment have been misused. There is no evidence