Dismissed

Bishan Kamboj v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Mar 2010CRR/407/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the petitioner had knowledge of the bounce and failed to make payment within the stipulated period after valid service of notice, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000 confirmed.

Bishan Kamboj Vs State of Punjab — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Criminal Revision No.407 of 2003.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

...

¶5

Criminal Revision No.407 of 2003.

¶6

Date of Decision: March 08, 2010.

¶7

Bishan Kamboj ... Petitioner

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

State of Punjab and another

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶14

QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.

¶15

Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, and Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶16

Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1.

¶17

None for respondent No.2.

¶18

¶19

MOHINDER PAL, J.

¶20

Aggrieved by the bouncing of cheque No.758202 for Rs.30,000/- and Cheque No.267477 for Rs.5,00,000/-, M/s. United Phosphorus Limited-respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to

¶21

-2-

¶22

Criminal Revision No.407 of 2003.

¶23

as the complainant-Company), filed the instant complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short `the Act') against petitioner-accused Bishan Kamboj proprietor of M/s. Kamboj Agro Centre. The trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition by the petitioner-accused.

¶24

The complainant-Company, which has its Head Office at Bombay and Branch Office at Bathinda, had been supplying pesticides to the petitioner. The petitioner, in partial discharge of the liability of his Company, issued cheque No.758202 for Rs.30,000/- and Cheque No.267477 for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant-Company. The said cheques, when presented for encashment, were dishonoured on account of “insufficient funds”. The complainant-Company then issued a notice to the petitioner which was received back as unclaimed in open form.

¶25

The endorsement made by the Postman revealed that the accused-petitioner had refused to accept the notice or his (petitioner's) shop was closed. The fact that registered notice issued to the petitioner was returned back in open form reveals that the accused-petitioner had opened the envelope and after

¶26

-3-

¶27

Criminal Revision No.407 of 2003.

¶28

perusing its contents intentionally refused to accept the service.

¶29

The petitioner failed to make the payment within the stipulated period after the notice. Thereafter, the complainant per force filed the instant complaint. The complaint was filed through Mr. R.P. Prashar. He being the Principal Officer of the complainant-company was authorized and constituted attorney of the complainant-Company. The complaint was, thus, filed by an authorized person of the complainant-Company.

¶30

The trial Court, after recording evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as aforesaid. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence, as recorded by the trial Court, was also dismissed.

¶31

The cheques issued by the petitioner-accused in favour of the complainant-Company, on presentation before the concerned bank, were dishonoured with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. After the cheques bounced, the complainant served a registered notice through his counsel upon the petitioner-accused.

¶32

Intimation regarding dishonouring of the cheques was given to the complainant on 13.5.1998 vide Exhibit C.15. Notice, copy of which is Exhibit C.9 is dated 13.5.1998. The notice was despatched on 13.5.1998 itself vide receipt Exhibit C.10. The returned envelopes Exhibits C.11 and C.12 reveal that they were opened and had reached the given address. If a registered letter is posted to the correct address of the addressee, it is presumed

¶33

-4-

¶34

Criminal Revision No.407 of 2003.

¶35

that it has reached at the given address. The petitioner-accused did not dispute his address given on the registered envelope. As per postal endorsement on the front of the envelope, the Postman had endorsed that the notice was refused. The refusal on the part of the accused to receive the notice after opening the registered cover and perusing the contents of the same as the notice was received back in an open form, establishes that the accused-petitioner was having knowledge of the same. In spite of that, the petitioner failed to make payment of the amount mentioned in the cheque. It has been held in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 2000 (1) P.L.R 113

¶36

that Court will presume that holder of the cheque received it for discharge of any debt or liability and burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption, which the petitioner has not been able to do in this case. In this case, the acts which are

¶37

components of the offence under Section 138 of the Act i.e drawing of the cheques, presentation of the cheque to the Bank, returning of the cheques unpaid by the drawee Bank, giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheques demanding payment of the amount of the cheques and failure of the drawer to make payment within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice, stand proved on record.

¶38

The facts and circumstances, discussed above, lead to the only conclusion that the petitioner has rightly been convicted by the Courts below. The conviction of the petitioner under Section

¶39

-5-

¶40

Criminal Revision No.407 of 2003.

¶41

138 of the Act is, therefore, confirmed. The sentence imposed on the petitioner also commensurates with the offence committed by

¶42

her. The impugned sentence order is also confirmed.

¶43

Resultantly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶44

March 08, 2010. ak

¶45

( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE

Bishan Kamboj v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishan Kamboj v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajjal Vs State of Haryana

Gian Chand Vs State of Haryana

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Singh Vs Ram Pal and Ors.

Shiv Charan Vs State of Haryana

Gopal Chand Vs State of Haryana