Som Dutt vs Gurdyal Singh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

The petitioner herein stands convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 243/2013, titled as Gurdyal Singh vs. Som Dutt, decided

on 31.07.2019. The petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the accused’ for convenience) has been sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay an amount of Rs.2.5 Lac as compensation to the complainant/respondent (hereinafter to be

referred as ‘the complainant’).

In appeal, the conviction so ordered by learned Trial Court stands upheld by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in

Criminal Appeal No. 96-Cr.A/10 of 2019, titled as Som Dutt vs. Gurdyal Singh, dated 07.09.2021.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the judgment passed by the learned Courts below.

The case of the complainant was that the accused was the friend of his son-in-law and had borrowed an amount of Rs.2.00 Lac from him in the

month of December, 2011, which was promised to be paid back to the complainant within a period of two months. In the month of February, 2012, to

discharge this liability, the accused issued a cheque dated 28.03.2012, for an amount of Rs.2.00 Lac drawn at State Bank of India, Deag, in favour of

the complainant. The cheque when presented at the bank by the complainant was dishonoured by the bank on 15.06.2012 on account of insufficient

funds. Thereafter, statutory legal notice was issued to the accused to make good the payment of cheque amount but as he failed to do so, the

complainant initiated proceedings against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

To prove his case, the complainant examined himself as CW-2 and also tendered his affidavit in evidence. The complainant also placed on record

the cheque in issue as also the cheque returning memo. Besides this, he also produced on record by way of evidence, the copy of the legal notice

issued to the accused as well as postal receipts thereof. The stand of the accused was of complete denial however he failed to substantiate the same

by leading any evidence. Both the learned Courts below have held that the accused was guilty of having committed the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out that the findings returned by the learned Courts below were

perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. In exercise of its revisional power, this Court is not to act as an appellate Court, however, it

ensures that in case there is any perversity in the findings returned by the learned Courts below, then the same be interfered with so that no injustice is

meted out to a party. In the case in hand, the complainant, on the one hand, has proved his case before the learned Trial Court by leading cogent

evidence in support thereof, whereas the accused was not able to demonstrate to the contrary. A close scrutiny of the judgments passed by the

learned Courts below demonstrates that the findings so returned by them are based on the appreciation of the pleadings as well as evidence on record.

Thus, as this Court does not finds any perversity in the said judgments, no case for interference with them is made out and accordingly, this petition

being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands

vacated.