Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Pandey for the revisionist and Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
(2.) This revision has been filed for setting aside the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 26.5.2010 and 3.8.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.1255 of 2010(Dr. Praneshwar Nath Rai vs. Safi Abbas) convicting and sentencing the revisionist for one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of R.3-00 lac under Section 138 of negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 12.5.2017 dismissing the appeal of the revisionist filed against the aforesaid order.
(3.) Dr. Pranav Nath Rai, opposite party no.2, filed a complaint registered as Complaint Case No.1255 of 2008 under Section 138 of the Act against Safi Abbas, the revisionist. In the complaint, it has been stated that the complainant was willing to purchase the land of the revisionist for which the deal has been settled for thirteen lac. Believing the version of the revisionist the complainant had given Rs.4.18 lac as advance to the revisionist. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the land which had to be sold to the complaint was sold to some other person. Therefore, the complainant demanded his money from the revisionist for which the revisionist issued a cheque dated 10.12.2007 for the amount Rs.2.18 lac. When the aforesaid cheque was deposited in Allahabad Bank Branch, Alopibagh, Daraganj, Allahabad for encashment, on 18.12.2007 and thereafter on 26.12.2007 then its payment was not made due to insufficient funds in the account of the drawee of the cheque. The complainant gave information of the aforesaid fact to the revisionist and had also given him registered notice through Advocate on 10.01.2008 but the amount had not been paid. On these allegation the complaint was filed on 26.2.2008 on which the court below issued notice to the revisionist. The revisionist appeared before the court below and filed his objection denying the allegation made in the complaint. The complainant filed his documentary evidence and examined himself as PW-1. Although in the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the revisionist denied the allegation made in the complaint but did not adduce any evidence in his defence. He merely stated that he had given a cheque of Rs.2.18 lac to the complainant but subsequently the complainant had stated that the aforesaid cheque had lost somewhere, therefore, impugned cheque was again issued to him. The matter was heard by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who by judgment dated 26.5.2010 convicted the revisionist for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and by subsequently order dated 3.8.2010 sentenced the revisionist for one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3-00 lac. The appeal filed by the revisionist against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 12.5.2017. Hence, this revision has been filed.;