Full Judgment Text
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 287/2012
Date of Decision: 30.05.2012
HARPREET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person with Mr.Sunil
Tiwari, Advocate.
versus
HARJEET SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Fizani Husain, APP for
R2/State.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 read with
Section 482 CrPC is filed assailing the order dated 25.4.2012 of learned
ASJ whereby the appeal against the judgment dated 17.2.2011 and order
on sentence dated 21.2.2011 passed by the M.M. against the petitioner
under Section 138, N.I.Act was dismissed.
2. A complaint under Section 138, N.I.Act was filed against the
petitioner by the respondent for the dishonour of cheque dated
24.7.2006 for Rs. 1.56 lakhs on account of „insufficient funds”. The
Crl.Rev.P. 287/2012 Page 1 of 3
petitioner having failed to pay the cheque amount despite service of
legal notice dated 31.7.2006 and also having failed to prove his defence,
was held guilty under Section 138, N.I.Act and convicted therein. The
matter was carried in appeal which came to be dismissed vide the
impugned order. The present petition is filed assailing the order of the
learned ASJ.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through
the record. It was not disputed that the cheque in question was issued by
the petitioner and that the same, on presentation, was dishonoured on
account of “insufficient funds”. It is also not in dispute that he received
a legal notice of demand from the complainant and neither replied the
same, nor made the payment of cheque amount.
4. The defence that was taken by the petitioner was that he had
given four blank cheques with blank papers and some stamped papers to
the complainant as security and which were not returned by him. It was
also his defence that he had taken loan of Rs. 15,000/- from the
complainant in July 2004, January 2005 and March 2005 and each time,
the complainant demanded two blank cheques as security. In his
statement recorded as witness (DW1) before learned M.M., he stated
that he had taken loan of Rs. 40000/- from the complainant in three
installments on interest in the year 2004 and that the principal amount
was returned through bearer cheques and interest was paid on monthly
basis and also that four blank cheques and other blank plain/stamp
papers were taken by the complainant as security. From the defence that
Crl.Rev.P. 287/2012 Page 2 of 3
was taken by the petitioner, it would be noted that in his statement, he
has stated about his having taken loan of Rs. 15000/- on three occasions,
whereas in his statement as DW1, he stated the loan amount to be Rs.
40000/-. Neither in the cross examination of complainant nor in his own
evidence, the petitioner was able to rebut the presumption of his having
issued cheques in question to the complainant in discharge of his legal
liability. The plea that was taken that he had returned the loan amount
by bearer cheques was unbelievable as he could not be presumed to
have given the loan amount in this manner without asking for any
receipt etc. In any case, no evidence has been led in this regard even by
way of preponderance of probabilities. I could not see any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order of the ASJ nor could find any fault in
the judgment and order on sentence passed by the M.M. The petition
has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
akb
MAY 30, 2012/
Crl.Rev.P. 287/2012 Page 3 of 3
+ CRL.REV.P. 287/2012
Date of Decision: 30.05.2012
HARPREET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person with Mr.Sunil
Tiwari, Advocate.
versus
HARJEET SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Fizani Husain, APP for
R2/State.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 read with
Section 482 CrPC is filed assailing the order dated 25.4.2012 of learned
ASJ whereby the appeal against the judgment dated 17.2.2011 and order
on sentence dated 21.2.2011 passed by the M.M. against the petitioner
under Section 138, N.I.Act was dismissed.
2. A complaint under Section 138, N.I.Act was filed against the
petitioner by the respondent for the dishonour of cheque dated
24.7.2006 for Rs. 1.56 lakhs on account of „insufficient funds”. The
Crl.Rev.P. 287/2012 Page 1 of 3
petitioner having failed to pay the cheque amount despite service of
legal notice dated 31.7.2006 and also having failed to prove his defence,
was held guilty under Section 138, N.I.Act and convicted therein. The
matter was carried in appeal which came to be dismissed vide the
impugned order. The present petition is filed assailing the order of the
learned ASJ.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through
the record. It was not disputed that the cheque in question was issued by
the petitioner and that the same, on presentation, was dishonoured on
account of “insufficient funds”. It is also not in dispute that he received
a legal notice of demand from the complainant and neither replied the
same, nor made the payment of cheque amount.
4. The defence that was taken by the petitioner was that he had
given four blank cheques with blank papers and some stamped papers to
the complainant as security and which were not returned by him. It was
also his defence that he had taken loan of Rs. 15,000/- from the
complainant in July 2004, January 2005 and March 2005 and each time,
the complainant demanded two blank cheques as security. In his
statement recorded as witness (DW1) before learned M.M., he stated
that he had taken loan of Rs. 40000/- from the complainant in three
installments on interest in the year 2004 and that the principal amount
was returned through bearer cheques and interest was paid on monthly
basis and also that four blank cheques and other blank plain/stamp
papers were taken by the complainant as security. From the defence that
Crl.Rev.P. 287/2012 Page 2 of 3
was taken by the petitioner, it would be noted that in his statement, he
has stated about his having taken loan of Rs. 15000/- on three occasions,
whereas in his statement as DW1, he stated the loan amount to be Rs.
40000/-. Neither in the cross examination of complainant nor in his own
evidence, the petitioner was able to rebut the presumption of his having
issued cheques in question to the complainant in discharge of his legal
liability. The plea that was taken that he had returned the loan amount
by bearer cheques was unbelievable as he could not be presumed to
have given the loan amount in this manner without asking for any
receipt etc. In any case, no evidence has been led in this regard even by
way of preponderance of probabilities. I could not see any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order of the ASJ nor could find any fault in
the judgment and order on sentence passed by the M.M. The petition
has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
akb
MAY 30, 2012/
Crl.Rev.P. 287/2012 Page 3 of 3