2017 (12) TMI 558 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms conviction under Section 138, emphasizes evidence scrutiny.

Bhoop Singh Versus State & Anr.

The Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition. The ... Dishonour of cheques - offence under NI Act - petitioner has stated in his defence that the two cheques as alleged to have been issued to the complainant for discharge of his legal liability was in fact stolen by the complainant from the house of the petitioner as he was on regular visiting terms - delay in lodging the complaint - Held that:- Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant in the present case had lodged his complaint on 24.08.2012; the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court on 09.11.2012; and the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the petitioner on 14.01.2013. However a complaint was filed by the petitioner on 26.06.2013 to SHO. There has been a clear lapse of 7 months in filing the complaint by the petitioner. The petitioner deposed that 'I came to know that my cheques having got stolen only after receiving the summons from this Hon'ble Court.' If the same is assumed to be true, the petitioner even then did not take any prompt action despite being aware of the fact that a complaint has been lodged against him by misusing his stolen cheques. The petitioner approached the police authorities only after seven months. Therefore from the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, it is quite apparent that the said complaint was a clear afterthought on the part of the petitioner to create a fictious defence in his favour. Therefore for the reasons set out above, it is of the considered view that the on no count does the impugned judgment and order on sentence call for any interference. The Trial Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. Findings of conviction cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. Issues:Petition under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging judgment of Additional Sessions Judge; Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act; Appeal against conviction and sentence; Allegations of stolen cheques; Dispute over legal demand notice; Delay in filing complaint by petitioner.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge upholding the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case revolved around a personal loan of Rs. 2 Lakhs given by the complainant to the petitioner, who allegedly issued a cheque that bounced due to 'Account Blocked.' The petitioner claimed the cheques were stolen by the complainant, denying any legal liability.2. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to Simple Imprisonment and a compensation amount. The petitioner appealed, but the Appellate Court affirmed the decision. The petitioner argued that the conviction was based on conjectures, emphasizing contradictions in witness testimonies and the alleged theft of cheques by the complainant.3. The petitioner contended that he did not receive the legal demand notice and had lodged a complaint about the stolen cheques. However, the complainant's evidence, supported by postal records, indicated the notice was sent and received. The delay in the petitioner's complaint filing raised doubts about the authenticity of his defense.4. The Court noted the close family relations between the parties and the lack of concrete evidence supporting the petitioner's claims. The Trial Court's findings were deemed sound, with no grounds for interference. The judgment and sentence were upheld, dismissing the Revision Petition for lacking merit.5. The Court emphasized that the evidence was thoroughly considered, and the conviction was not erroneous or perverse. The petitioner's delayed actions and unconvincing explanations weakened his defense. The petition was dismissed, and the lower court records were to be returned promptly.6. In conclusion, the Court found no valid reason to interfere with the Trial Court's decision, affirming the conviction under the NI Act. The petitioner's claims of stolen cheques and lack of notice receipt were deemed unconvincing, leading to the dismissal of the Revision Petition.