Judgment:
Crl.
Revision No.2585 of 2013 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.
Revision No.2585 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:
20. 8.2013.
Ambuj Kumar Singh ........Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner....SABINA, J.
Petitioner had faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act'' for short) in a complaint filed by respondent No.2.
The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 5.10.2012/6.10.2012 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act.
Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of his conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal.
The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 5.8.2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
In the present case, respondent No.2 had filed the complaint in question against the petitioner with regard to Singh Gurpreet dishonour of cheque dated 6.3.2010 in the sum of 2013.08.22 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.
Revision No.2585 of 2013 (O&M) -2 - ` 1,00,000/-.
When the cheque in question, issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2, was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks 'insufficient funds'.
Respondent had duly proved before the Trial Court that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner.
Petitioner took up the plea that in fact, loan amount had been repaid by him.
In this regard, petitioner examined two witnesses DW-1 Mohd.
Israr Hussain Khan and DW-2 Jitender Yadav.
The Courts below rightly held that no reliance could be placed on the statements of the said witnesses as their oral version was not corroborated by any documentary evidence.
Petitioner had failed to prove on record any receipt qua repayment of the amount in question.
On the other hand, respondent No.2 had been successful in proving his case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 20, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.08.22 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh