Full Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
Oral:
Petitioner was convicted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short-'the Act'), vide judgment dated 11.5.2009 and was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
The aforesaid judgment was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide impugned judgment dated 3.8.2011.
Both the aforesaid judgments of the Courts below are under challenge in this revision petition.
As per the facts emerging out from the impugned judgments, the petitioner in order to discharge his liability issued a cheque No. 221927 dated 15.1.2003 worth Rs.2,50,000/-, as part payment, drawn on Bank of Punjab Ltd. Malout. The said cheque was not honoured and was returned unpaid with the remarks “insufficient funds”.
While convicting the petitioner, the trial Court found that the offence under Section 138 of the Act, stood proved against the petitioner and infact version of the complainant remained un-rebutted as even in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no specific plea was taken by the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide the impugned judgment dated 3.8.2011.
On 16.11.2011, this Court after noticing the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner passed the following order:
“Present: Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner will try to find out the source of money to make the payment but that would be possible only if he comes out.
As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone incarnation for a period of 3 months and 12 days out of the substantive sentence of one year.
So, in these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail for a period of two months to the satisfaction of trial Court and in case he deposits half of the cheque amount before the trial Court within those two months, the interim order will be deemed to be extended.
Adjourned to 25.01.2012.”
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was granted adjournment vide order dated 25.1.2012, to verify the factum of compliance of the order dated 16.11.2011. Today, Ms. Puja Chopra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that as per her instructions after getting himself released on interim bail vide order dated 16.11.2011, the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid order.
It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was released on interim bail. However, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant that the petitioner has failed to make and has not complied with the order dated 16.11.2011.
Thus, in these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has abused the process of law by taking benefit of interim bail on the basis of a incorrect statement made before this Court and after having released himself on interim bail has not complied with the said order. Even the petitioner has not surrendered after the completion of the period of interim bail. The petitioner has committed an offence falling under Chapter 10 of the Indian Penal Code.
Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the impugned orders.
Revision petition is dismissed.
At this stage, Mr. Amninder Singh, Advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curiae, in the present case to assist this Court for further proceeding against the petitioner. Formal letter of appointment as Amicus Curiae may be issued to Mr. Amninder Singh, Advocate by the High Court Legal Aid Committee.
List on 12.7.2012.