Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of the aforementioned petitions as identical questions of law and facts are involved, for adjudication. For the facility of reference, the facts are being taken from CRM -M -52480 -2007.
(2.) SATPAL son of Rangi Ram (respondent) filed the complaint under Section 138/143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (in short 'the Act') on the premise that the accused namely Smt. Phoolpati wife of Raj Singh and Raj Singh son of Prithi Singh purchased agriculture land measuring 26 kanals 8 marlas for a sale consideration of Rs. 38,61,000/ - vide registered sale deed bearing Vasika No. 753 dated 02.08.2006 from the complainant and his co -sharers namely Surjan and Krishan. At the time of execution of sale deed, Phoolpati and Raj Singh paid only an amount of Rs. 19,61,000/ - out of total sale consideration of Rs. 38,61,000/ -. They agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 19 lacs in near future as they could not arrange for the amount since they have also purchased another parcel of land measuring 53 kanals 12 marlas @ Rs. 11,70,000/ - per acre. The accused on 30.05.2007 handed over 2 demand drafts (on demand pay) dated 29.05.2007 bearing TEU 848509 and TEU 848510 for an amount of Rs. 9.5 lacs each issued by the Punjab National Bank, Sector 14, Sonepat (Haryana). The complainant presented the drafts in Co -operative Bank at village Ahar and the said bank sent the drafts to Central Co -operative Bank, Panipat for collection. The complainant on 09.06.2007 received information with a report 'Lost'; the accused failed to pay the amount of drafts despite receipt of legal notice dated 06.06.2007. Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J.S. Bedi, Senior Advocate contends that Phoolpati petitioner purchased land vide 3 separate sale deeds dated 02.08.2006, 02.08.2006 and 26.09.2006 from Surjan, Satpal, Krishan, Ramphal and Satbir sons of Rangi Ram. A recital in the sale deeds categorically states that the entire payment has already been made to the vendors. On the basis of sale deeds, mutation was duly sanctioned in the name of Phoolpati and she has been recorded in possession of land as per entries in the khasra girdawari. It is argued with vehemence that as Phoolpati had already paid the entire sale consideration before execution of sale deeds in the months of August and September 2006, there is no question of the petitioners having issued the drafts in dispute to discharge their liability qua the sale deeds executed about 10 months prior to the date on which the drafts were got prepared. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the drafts in question were got prepared as the complainant and his brother Ramphal agreed to sell the remaining land measuring 29 kanals to the petitioners and they received a sum of Rs. 4 lacs as earnest money in the presence of Shamsher and the remaining sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deeds on 30.05.2007. Two sale deeds were duly prepared on 30.05.2007 and four drafts dated 29.05.2007 bearing Nos. TEU 848509, TEU 848510, TEU 848511 and TEU 848512 for a sum of Rs. 9.5 lacs each were prepared from the account of Ramphal son of Prithi. The vendors and the vendees went before the Sub Registrar Israna and asked the petitioners to show the four drafts and the complainant party snatched the drafts and ran away from the Tehsil premises without completing the sale deeds (Annexures P10 & P11). According to counsel, as the drafts in dispute were got prepared by the petitioners to pay the sale consideration qua the sale deeds which were yet to be executed by the vendors in their favour, there was no subsisting and enforceable liability and the drafts in dispute were illegally and forcibly taken away by the complainant. Further argued that in the absence of any existing liability qua the drafts in dispute, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for committing offence punishable under section 138 of the Act.
(3.) ANOTHER submission made by counsel is that the drafts were got prepared from the account of Ramphal son of Prithi and even if the drafts in dispute were not encashed, at best, Ramphal son of Prithi can be prosecuted for committing offence under Section 138 of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.J. Agro Tech Limited and Others Vs. Water Base Limited : (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 164.;