- (1.) Since in both the aforecaptioned criminal revisions question of facts and law involved are common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by means of this common order.
(2.) The facts which are necessary for adjudication of these revisions are that Parmatma Saran Gupta, the revisionist in criminal revision No. 2789 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant-revisionist) made a complaint before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Moradabad alleging therein that one Sudhir Garg, the revisionist in criminal revision No. 2425 of 2009 ( hereinafter referred to as accused-revisionist ) took a loan of Rs. 2,16,000/- (two lac sixteen thousand only) from him on different dates and for repayment of the said loan, he has issued five post-dated cheques to the revisionist Parmatma Saran Gupta of his bank account No. 15939 of Union Bank of India, Moradabad and also executed an agreement in writing in this regard. The complainant-revisionist deposited the said cheques in his bank account No. 952 of Punjab National Bank Kanth Road, Moradabad thrice, but the aforesaid cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient fund. The complainant-revisionist thereafter sent a notice dated 23.3.2005 to the accused-revisionist asking him to repay the said loan of Rs. 2,16,000/- within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, but in collusion with the postman, accused-revisionist returned the said notice with the remark that the addressee not met in spite of repeated visits. On 3.4.2005, the complainant-revisionist received back unserved notice. Thereafter the complainant-revisionist sent a demand notice on 21.4.2005, which was received by accused-revisionist on 25.4.2005, who replied to the notice on 6.5.2005, but the loan amount was not paid.
(3.) The learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant Parmatma Saran Gupta under section 200 Cr.P.C., the evidence under section 202 Cr.P.C., the written agreement dated 21.9.2004 executed by the Sudhir Garg and all other materials, on being satisfied that prima facie case is made out, summoned the accused Sudhir Garg and recorded his statement under section 251 Cr.P.C. The accused in this statement admitted that he took loan of Rs. 2,16,000/- in cash from the complainant. He also admitted that he issued all the five cheques to the complainant, the aforesaid cheques were dishonoured owing to insufficient funds in his account. Further, he confessed that he has not repaid the loan amount and admitted all allegations of the complaint. Having considred the argument of the parties, learned trial court convicted Sudhir Garg under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. The learned trial judge had also awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- against Sudhir Garg.;