Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

CRLR/ 735/ 2022

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Prasanna Karnatak, learned

counsel for the revisionist.

2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief

Holder for the State.

3. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for

respondent no.2.

4. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2022 passed by learned 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2017, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order passed by learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 6461 of 2013 convicting the revisionist under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “N.I. Act”) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation of ₹12,00,000/- to the complainant/

respondent no.2.

5. Brief facts of the case as per record are that the revisionist and respondent no.2 are close relatives, the revisionist being the uncle (chacha) of respondent no.2. It is alleged that due to financial difficulties, the revisionist borrowed a sum of ₹10,00,000/- from respondent no.2 with an assurance to repay the same within ten days. To discharge this liability, the revisionist issued a signed cheque in favour of the father of respondent no.2; that, when the cheque presented for encashment, was

dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficient funds”; that, the father of respondent no.2 then issued a statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act calling upon the revisionist to make payment of the cheque amount, but the notice was returned unserved. Thereafter, the father of respondent no.2 instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Upon recording preliminary evidence and being satisfied that a prima facie case existed, the trial court issued summons to the revisionist. After trial, the revisionist was convicted and sentenced as stated above. The appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment dated 13.10.2022. Hence, the present revision.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist has been falsely implicated due to a family dispute regarding ancestral property; that he never borrowed any amount from respondent no.2 nor issued the cheque in question towards any legally enforceable debt or liability; that, the cheque was an old manual cheque, allegedly misused by the complainant in connivance with the bank manager, and the body of the cheque was not in the handwriting of the revisionist.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would further submit that the revisionist is an aged person of more than 80 years, suffering from partial blindness due to glaucoma, and had no occasion to enter into any such transaction. Learned counsel argued that both the trial court and appellate court erred in presuming liability without proper proof of legally enforceable debt.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 would submit that the issuance of the signed cheque by the