Mahavir S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 by the court of Judicial Magistrate Class 1st Class, Chandigarh (for short -the 'trial court') vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2013. Besides, award of punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 02 years, the petitioner was also directed to pay a compensation amounting to Rs. 45 lacs to the complainant within two months from the date of passing of the judgment. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment and order of sentence by way of Criminal Appeal No. 1123 of 2013, which, after contest, has been dismissed vide judgment dated 19.02.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (for short -the 'appellate court'). Now to assail the correctness of the judgments/order passed by the courts below, the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short -'Cr.P.C.').
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended in the first instance that the cheque was dishonoured on 13.05.2008 and the notice was issued on 29.05.2008 which admittedly was beyond 15 days from the date of dishonour of cheque. However, it transpires from the record and is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that question of delay in issuance of the notice was not put -forth before the courts below. That being so, plea based on delay, if any, in issuing the notice is deemed to have been waived by petitioner and, as such, the contention is not available to the petitioner.
(3.) IT is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been admitted by the complainant in his cross -examination that amount of Rs. 50 lacs referred to in the agreement, Exhibit C -3, was lying at his house but it is not reflected in the Income Tax Return of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon 'Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde', : (2008) 4 SCC 54, to support his contention that in a case involving unaccounted money, the debt cannot be said to be legally enforceable debt. However, the judgment relied upon is not applicable to the facts of this case because in the case in hand, money transaction is not involved and instead, cheque in question is shown to have been issued in some property deal. In these circumstances, even this contention is not available to the petitioner.;