IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Crl. Revision No.1306 of 2003

Date of Decision:May 05, 2009

M/s Dadra Finance Pvt.Ltd.

...........Petitioner

Versus

Vinod Kumar Bhatia

..........Respondent

Coram:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.Vijay Rana, Advocate

for the respondent.

**

Sabina, J.

Respondent was tried for an offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`the Act' for short) by the Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar in a complaint filed by the petitioner vide

judgment and order dated 30.7.2001. Respondent was convicted and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and

to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 138 of the Act by the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was

allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated

21.12.2002 and the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against

him. Aggrieved by the same, complainant/petitioner has filed the present

revision petition.

Crl. Revision. M No.1306 of 2003

-2-

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the appellate Court in

para 2 of its judgment, are reproduced here in below:-

“In brief the facts of the case is that the complaint has been filed

by the complainant M/s Dadra Finance Pvt. Ltd. against the

accused Vinod Kumar Bhatia under Section 138 of N.I.Act on the

allegations that the complainant is a Pvt. Ltd. company and deals

in Financing of vehicles of different nature. Parshotam Dadra is

one of its Managing Director and the complainant, has authorised

him to file the complaint against the accused Vinod Bhatia vide

resolution dt. 28.2.98. Aforesaid Parshotam Dadra being M.D. is

fully authorised to pursue the case and fully conversant with the

facts of the present case. Further alleged that accused Vinod

Bhatia took a loan from the complainant comp. which was to pay

in the installments, but the payment made by the accused used to

be very irregular. To discharge his legal liability debt the accused

issue cheque dt. 9.1.1998 in the sum of Rs.90300/- to the

complainant assuring that the cheque will be encashed on

presentation in the bank as the accused had sufficient funds in his

account. The complainant insisted for bank draft but the accused

assured that the cheque will be encashed. Believing the assurance

of the accused to be true the complainant accepted the cheque for

Rs.90300/- when the said cheque was presented by the

complainant through his banker Vijaya Bank, G.T.Road Jalandhar

for collection, but the cheque was received back dishonoured with

remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Thereafter, on receiving back the

Crl. Revision No.1306 of 2003

-3-

cheque complainant sent a legal notice to the accused through his

counsel asking him to make the payment within stipulated period

of 15 days from the date of receipt which was duly served upon

the accused, but the accused has failed to make the payment.

Hence, this complaint.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although

the hypothecation had been cancelled on 9.8.1996 yet there was no material

on record to suggest that the due amount had been paid by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has

submitted that respondent had raised a loan for purchase of a Car and the

Car was hypothecated to the petitioner. Later on, the hypothecation was

cancelled and the Car was transferred in favour of Sampuran Singh. The

blank cheque lying with the petitioner had been filled up and the complaint

in question had been filed against the respondent.

Learned appellate Court has observed that the respondent had

taken loan for the purchase of the vehicle and consequently, the vehicle was

hypothecated with the petitioner. Thereafter, the hypothecation w