JUDGMENT
R.C. Jain, J.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 9.10.2003 and order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant of the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein referred to as the “Act”) and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for a period of four months. The amount of fine was directed to be paid to the complainant under the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C.
2. The facts and circumstances leading to the present appeal are that the respondent- V.K. Thucker had filed a complaint under Section 138/142 of the Act against the present appellant with the averments and allegations that the he had given a friendly loan of Rs.19,000/- to the appellant in the month of December, 1998 and in order to liquidate the said loan, the appellant had issued two cheques bearing Nos. 384699 and 384700 dated 1.4.1999 and 30.4.1999 for the amount of Rs.9,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively drawn on Canara Bank, Branch Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. The said two cheques, however, on presentation to the bank were dishonored and returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds. Therefore, the complainant served legal notice dated 26.7.1999 on the appellant but neither the appellant paid the amount of the cheque within the stipulated period nor replied to the said notice. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. issued to him. The issuance of the aforesaid cheques was not denied by the appellants but a defense plea was set up to the effect that the cheques were given to the complainant on account of certain transaction of sale of immovable property and towards consideration of the complainant executing a relinquishment in respect of his share in the said immovable property. The Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence led by the complainant and the accused, however, discarded the said defense version and found that the complainant as able to establish his case in regard to the non-payment of two cheques and, therefore, recorded the finding of guilty and sentenced the appellants as above.
3. I have heard Mr. J.P. Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mr. S.K. Berwal, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.
4. Mr. J.P. Gupta, sought to assail the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial court as erroneous on the submission that the learned trial court has erred in not believing the defense put forth by the appellants in regard to the cheques having been issued by the appellant- S.P. Sharma, as consideration for relinquishing the share of the complainant in the landed property purchased jointly by them along with certain other persons. In this connection he has submitted that the complainant has admitted that certain land was purchased by him along with accused and that he has received the amount of Rs. 6,000/- from the accused in that connection. It is true that the complainant has admitted these facts but if his testimony is taken as a whole it will be apparent that the complainant had never agreed to relinquish his share in the said joint property or that the two cheques in question were issued by the appellant as a consideration payable to the complainant for relinquishing his share. The complainant has denied allegations in that behalf. The appellant has no doubt himself entered into witness box as his own defense witness under the provisions of Section 315 Cr.P.C., but on the face of the overwhelming evidence led on behalf of the complainant, the Court has discarded the defense version and rightly so because the appellant neither entered into any written document indicating that the cheques were being issued towards the relinquishment of the share of the complainant in a certain immovable property nor did he stop the payment of the cheques at the time when according to him the complainant failed to execute the documents to relinquish his share. Not only this, the appellant did not reply to the notice sent by the complainant demanding the payment of the said cheques. The silence on the part of the appellant at all these relevant stages would show the hollowness of his defense.
5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and the material brought on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant is based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record and it cannot be faultered on any ground.
6. Mr. J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has made a plea for reduction of the amount of fine stating that at best the Court should have imposed a fine of Rs.19,000/- e.g. the amount of cheques in question and the imposition of fine of Rs.30,000/- is harsh and excessive. In the opinion of this Court, even this submission has no merits as the sentence of fine cannot be said to be harsh or excessive by any standard.
7. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. It is stated that the appellant has already deposited the amount of fine in the Court and, therefore, as per the directions of the learned trial court, the same shall be paid to the respondent/complainant forthwith.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.