- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
(2.) By means of the instant revision, the revisionist has challenged the concurrent finding of his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The revisionist was tried in Case No. 774 of 2008, Lal Saheb v. Vinod Kumar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh and by judgment dated 28.5.2011, he was held guilty for the aforementioned offence and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, and fine of L 5,000/- and also with compensation of L 14,00,000/-. Fine imposed on him contained default stipulation of two months imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of the trial court, the revisionist preferred criminal appeal no. 56 of 2011 and the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh by his judgment dated 28.8.2012 partly allowed the appeal. Conviction of the revisionist was confirmed. The sentence imposed upon him was modified to the extent that the amount of Fine of L 5,000/- and clause of default stipulation was deleted and the remaining sentence including compensation was confirmed.
(3.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present controversy are that Lal Saheb (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') had given L 9,87,000/- in connection with his business of subcontractor to the revisionist. To repay the same, revisionist issued Cheque No. 306959 (00002400031) on 28.7.2008. When this cheque was deposited for encashment in the bank by the complainant, the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund. The information of refusal dishonouring of the cheque was received by the complainant on 22.8.2008 thereafter he made an effort to contact the revisionist on phone but the revisionist avoided his phone calls. Thereafter a legal notice as provided under Negotiable Instrument Act was sent to the revisionist. By the said notice, the complainant had demanded the payment of cheque amount but the revisionist neither replied the said notice nor made any payment. Thereafter the complaint was filed on which the revisionist was summoned to face trial. During trial, the complainant was examined as PW-1 and the relevant documents were also proved. The defence of the revisionist was that he had never issued the said cheque to the complainant. The case of the revisionist is that he had filled up one cheque for L 87,000/- only and had signed it. The said cheque was lost and therefore, he gave an information to this effect at the police station concerned and also informed the bank not to make payment of this cheque. The revisionist himself examined and has also filed a copy of application sent to the Bank for stopping the payment of the cheque in question and also the carbon copy of the application given at the police station regarding loss of the cheque. After considering the evidence in detail, the revisionist was convicted by the trial court as mentioned above, hence an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by a detailed and reasoned order. Hence the instant revision.;