Cr. Revision No. 226 of 2016. Case: Sant Lal Vs Madan Lal and another. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberCr. Revision No. 226 of 2016
Party NameSant Lal Vs Madan Lal and another
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Advocate, Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General
JudgesMr. Sandeep Sharma, J
IssueCriminal Procedure Code - Section 401
Judgement DateApril 18, 2017
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

  1. Instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC is directed against judgment dated 1.7.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 31-S/10 of 2015, affirming judgment dated 7.9.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Complaint No. 59/3 of 2014, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioneraccused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (''Act'', for short), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of `5.00 Lakh to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ''complainant'') under Section 357(3) CrPC and, in default of payment of compensation, to further undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of ten days.

  2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that petitioner-accused, who was a friend and known to the complainant for the last so many years, was in need of money in order to start his business and as such he made request to him to advance a friendly loan of `5.00 Lakh. On the aforesaid request having been made by the petitioner-accused, complainant advanced a sum of `5.00 Lakh to the petitioner-accused as a loan and petitioner-accused, with a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, issued cheque amounting to `5.00 Lakh on 16.4.2014, drawn at Punjab National Bank, Patta Mehlog Branch, District Solan, in favour of the complainant, with the assurance that the same would be honoured by the drawee Bank on presentation. However, the fact remains that, on presentation, cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account maintained by the petitioner-accused. Immediately after receipt of memo from the Bank, complainant got a legal notice issued to the petitioneraccused, calling upon him to make good the payment within fifteen days but since he failed to make the payment within stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law.

  3. Learned trial Court i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, held petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as...

To continue reading

Request your trial