Sita Ram vs The State

Bedi, J.—The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as under: Sunder Lal complainant was a dealer in cattle at Rohtak. On 10th August, 1962, the petitioner purchased two buffaloes from him at Rohtak for Rs. 600/- each. In order to settle the amount he gave a cheque on the Punjab National Bank, Poona. for Rs. 1200/- on the same day in the presence of Ram Lubhaya and Gopal Das P.Ws. The complainant refused to accept the cheque. The petitioner told him that he should present the cheque in the bank for payment and there would be no difficulty in its encashment. The complainant, therefore, accepted the cheque which was post-dated being of 20th August, 1962. The cheque was accordingly presented to the Punjab National Bank at Rohtak for collection, but when it was sent to the Bank at Poona it was returned with a memo PB that the "amount covered by the cheque was not arranged for." An effort was made by the complainant to secure the payment from the petitioner which proved abortive. The complainant, therefore, lodged the complaint.

In support of his contention the complainant examined V.P. Puri, Supervisor, Punjab National Bank at Rohtak, Ram Lubhaya and Gopal Dass besides himself.

The petitioner when examined u/s 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code denied the allegations against him adding that the complainant had sold him two buffaloes at Bombay and not at Rohtak and it was later on that the complainant obtained the cheque from the petitioner at Poona. He also averred that he had already paid Rs. 500/- to a partner of the complainant and that he was willing to pay the balance.

On the above facts the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment u/s 420 of the Penal Code. He went up in appeal in the Court of Sessions which was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Rohtak on 9th April, 1964, against which this revision petition is directed.

The facts were not denied before me at the time of arguments. The only argument the petitioner''s counsel advanced before me was that the transaction took place on 10th August, 1962, when the petitioner gave a cheque post-dated as 20th August, 1962. It was not denied that when the cheque was sent there was not enough money in the bank to honour it. The petitioner''s contention was that it was only a civil liability and not criminal one. This point was also raised before the Sessions Judge who relying on Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal1 and Shantilal v. State2, repelled the above argument. The point which requires to be seen in such cases is as to what was the intention of the parties at the time of the bargain. Now the petitioner when he purchased the buffaloes gave the complainant to understand in the presence of Gopal Das and Ram Lubhaya that there will be no difficulty in getting the cheque encashed. The cheque was, therefore, sent to the Bank for collection on 25th August, 1962 and it was dishonoured as stated above. It is clear from the evidence of these witnesses, namely, Ram Lubhaya and Gopal Das besides the complainant, that at the time of the transaction the petitioner assured the complainant of its encashment although he was aware that there was not enough money in the bank to meet the amount of the cheque. At the time of the arguments, I suggested to the petitioner''s counsel that the matter could be settled if even now the petitioner was prepared to pay the entire amount to the complainant, but he was not willing to do so. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner even now was not in a position to settle this matter.

In view of the above I feel that the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner was most proper. The petition is dismissed.