Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Harmesh Singh stands convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the courts below and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. The present revision petition has been filed to assail his conviction and sentence, as ordered by the courts below.
(2.) ON 28.5.2013 a Coordinate Bench of this Court formed an opinion that the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of guilty of the petitioner and such finding is not shown to be suffering from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the view taken was that the conviction of the petitioner is well founded and is upheld. The matter, however, was adjourned only on the limited issue of quantum of sentence and time was granted to the counsel for the petitioner to complete instructions as to whether the petitioner was ready and willing to compensate the complainant. The order passed on 28.5.2013 reads as follows: - - Convict Harmesh Singh has filed this revision petition to assail his conviction and sentence ordered by the courts below. The petitioner stands convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short -the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner had borrowed Rs. 6 lacs from the complainant -respondent No. 2 and had issued him the cheque in question, which was dishonoured. The petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount in spite of demand notice. The petitioner, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, simply denied the incriminating evidence and claimed to be innocent. He alleged that he had not received any amount from the complainant and had not issued the cheque in question. However, the petitioner did not lead any evidence in his defence. The cheque in question bears signatures of the petitioner. He has not explained as to how the signed cheque fell in the hands of the complainant. There is no material on record to rebut the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, there is presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of debt or liability. Both the courts below have analysed the evidence and have come to concurrent findings of guilt of the petitioner. The said finding is not shown to be suffering from perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record so as to call for interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. Conviction of the petitioner is well founded and is accordingly upheld. As regards quantum of sentence, counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment to seek instructions if the petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant. Adjourned to 15.7.2013.
(3.) THEREAFTER , the matter has been adjourned repeatedly and has been taken up on 15.7.2013, 30.7.2013, 2.8.2013, 13.9.2013 and 29.10.2013. In the first few dates noticed herein above counsel for the petitioner has been requesting for time to complete instructions in the light of order dated 28.5.2013 passed by this Court. Thereafter, on 13.9.2013 and 29.10.2013 none has appeared.;