Smt. Neelam Bhardwaj vs State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand)

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard. This revision is directed against the order dated 15.10.2003, passed by Additional Sessions 2. Judge/Fast Track Court, IIIrd, Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2000, whereby said court has affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court (Judicial Magistrate, 1st Dehradun), in Criminal Case No. 511 of 2000, u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the accused/revisionist Smt. Neelam Bhardwaj.

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No. 2 Aya Singh Chawla (complainant), filed a criminal complaint before Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, with the allegations that, towards the financial ability due from the revisionist, she gave two cheques ( No. 354466 and 354467) on 06.02.1996, for an amount of Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant. On 28.02.1996, said cheques were presented before the bankers, and on the same day the cheques were dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. On this complainant Aya Singh Chawla (present respondent No. 2) sent a notice on the very day (28.02.1996), which was received by accused/revisionist Smt. . Neelam Bhardwaj on 08.03.1996. Under clause (c) of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused/revisionist had a time of fifteen days to make payment of the amount in respect of which cheques were dishonoured. The period of fifteen days expired on 23.03.1996 (23-8-15). Under clause (b) of the section complainant filed criminal complaint within a period of one month thereafter i.e. on 23.04.1996, before the trial court. The case was contested by the accused/revisionist Smt. Neelam Bhardwaj. The trial court recorded the evidence, and found that the charge in respect of offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is fully proved as against the accused, and convicted, and sentenced her accordingly on said count for a period of simple imprisonment of three months, and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- out of which Rs. 4,000/- were directed to be paid to the complainant. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 23.11.2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 511 of 2000, Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2000 was filed by the convict (Neelam Bhardwaj) before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun. The appeal was decided after hearing the parties by Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd Fast Track Court, Dehradun, vide its impugned order dated 15.10.2003. Hence this revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued before this court that the criminal complaint was barred by time. It is pleaded on behalf of the revisionist that admittedly cheques were dishonoured on 28.02.1996, and on the same day notice was sent by the complainant. There is no dispute between the parties that said notice was received by the accused on 08.03.1996. As such, in the opinion of this court, as observed by the courts below that fifteen days stood expired on 23.03.1996. That being so, the complainant was required to filed criminal complaint within one month with effect from 24.03.1996. This court agrees with the trial court as well as appellate court that the complainant has rightly filed the criminal complaint on last of limitation i.e. 23.04.1996. This court is unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that a period limitation for filing criminal complaint stood expired on 21.04.1996.

Apart from the above, it is argued before the learned counsel for the revisionist that the courts below have erred in law in not accepting the oral testimony of DW 1 Inderjeet Singh. As to the factual evidence the two courts below have appreciated the evidence of both the parties, and this court in its revisional jurisdiction is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact, particularly when there is nothing on the record to indicate that the findings are pervert or against the record. The evidence of DW 1 Inderjeet Singh does not appear to be corroborated from any documentary proof. For the reasons as discussed above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. However, on the point of sentence keeping in mind that revisionist is a woman, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already under gone. With this modification in the sentence of imprisonment this revision stands disposed of, the revisionist is allowed to deposit remaining part of funds directed to be paid by the trial court within a period of fifteen days from today.