Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Anil Dhir Vs State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Appeal Number : CRR-521-2022 (O & M)
Date of Judgement/Order : 21/07/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

Anil Dhir Vs State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Sh. Pankaj Galhotra proprietor M/s Anahita Enterprises filed this complaint alleging inter alia that he was doing the business of manufacturing knitted fabric and the accused No.1-Anil Dhir (petitioner No.1 herein) on behalf of accused No.2-M/s Refine Traders (petitioner No.2 herein) purchased the said goods from the complainant through invoice No.32 dated 20.03.2013 for Rs.4,58,000/- and in order to discharge their legal enforceable liability towards the complainant, the accused No.1/petitioner No.1 on behalf of accused No.2 issued a cheque bearingNo.985877 dated 23.03.2013 for Rs.4,58,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, 2594, Main Road Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana in favour of the complainant, with the assurance that the same would be encashed on its presentation. However, on presentation of the said cheque by the complainant through his bankers, the cheque was received back dishonoured with the remarks “Opening Balance Insufficient” vide bank memo dated 29.03.2013. Upon this, the complainant got issued the statutory legal notice through his counsel on 25.04.2013 calling upon the accused to make good the amount covered under the cheque in question but despite this, the accused did not pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Hence, the complainant had been constrained to file a complaint.

After hearing the proxy counsel and having examined both the judgments of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court as also the learned Appellate Court, I find no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments of the said Courts. Firstly, the service of the notice upon the accused cannot be denied in the light of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, as per which, a presumption is raised in favour of the complainant that the notice had, in fact, been delivered. The arguments that certain documents had been forged and fabricated is absolutely incorrect. Had that been the case, the accused would have certainly filed a criminal complaint in that regard. No effort has been made to examine any expert either. Further, there is no denial by the petitioner to the signatures upon the cheque and the stand taken by the petitioner is only that the cheque, in question, had not been issued in the discharge of any legal enforceable debt but had been misused and, in fact, no goods had been received by him. Except his bald assertion, the accused has not been able to raise a probable defence even while referring to the cross-examination of the complainant and his witnesses. Thus, it is apparent that there is absolutely no infirmity in the judgment of conviction passed by either the Trial Court or the learned Appellate Court vide which the judgment of the Trial Court has been affirmed. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.


The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana was upheld.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.


Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2024