Bhoop Singh v. State & Anr

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. DECEMBER 4, 2017 / gr//

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order reserved on: 21st November, 2017 Order pronounced on: 4th December, 2017 + BHOOP SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jatin Gupta, Advocate. versus STATE & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State with SI Sunder Singh from PS-Baba Haridas Nagar for R-1. Ms. Rakhi Dubey Adv. For R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") assailing the judgement dated 27.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 12/16, whereby the judgement dated 02.01.2015 and order on sentence dated 17.01.2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was upheld. 2. Factual matrix emerging from the record is that, a complaint was lodged by one Amit Kumar alleging therein that the petitioner who being in close family relations with him, requested for a personal loan for a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs in the first week of October 2011. Considering the urgent need of the petitioner, the complainant is stated to have given a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the petitioner vide Cheque bearing No.038785, dated 12.01.2011, issued from the account of one Raj Kalan/a relative of the complainant and the same was encashed by the petitioner from the account of one Inder Singh. The complainant further stated that in order to discharge his personal liability, the petitioner issued a Cheque bearing No.394512 dated 05.07.2012 for a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs, which when presented for encashment on 05.07.2012 was returned unpaid for the reasons "Account Blocked". Thereafter a legal demand notice dated 30.07.2012 was served upon the petitioner. However even despite the said notice, the petitioner did not make any payment to the complainant and hence the present complaint was lodged. 3. A notice dated 14.01.2013, under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as 'NI Act') was served upon the petitioner. Upon being summoned by the Trial Court, the accused/petitioner entered appearance; pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. The parties led their respective evidence. The complainant examined himself on oath as a sole witness which was followed by the statement of accused/petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied his liability towards the complainant and deposed that his two signed cheques were stolen by the complainant. He also denied the service of legal demand notice upon him. No other witness was examined by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in CC.No.3525/41 under Section 138 of the N.I Act and has been directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for five months, pay a compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- to the complainant and in case of failure in paying the said amount, to further suffer SI for three months vide judgment dated 02.01.2015 and order on sentence dated 17.01.2015. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment on conviction and order of sentence of the Trial Court vide Crl.Appeal No.12/2016 before the Special Judge, (PC Act) CBI-03, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. The Appellate Court vide order dated 27.05.2016 affirmed the judgment and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present Revision Petition. 5. Mr. Jatin Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that judgement of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is bad in law and is based on conjectures and surmises; that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused/petitioner beyond reasonable doubt; that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witness; that in fact the signed cheques were not issued regarding discharge of any legal liability but were