Crl.Rev.No.3252 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.3252 of 2010 Date of decision:8.12.2010. Major Singh ....................Petitioner v. Sohan Singh .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.LS Sidhu,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Petitioner-Major Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Section 401 Cr.PC challenging the judgment dated 15.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 13.10.2008 passed by learned CJM,Moga, convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for two months, was partly modified only qua sentence by reducing the quantum of sentence to nine months only. Respondent-Sohan Singh filed a complaint under Section Crl.Rev.No.3252 of 2010 2 138 of the Act against the petitioner with the allegations that petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.1,84,000/- from him against pronote and receipt dated 16.8.2003. Petitioner agreed to repay the entire loan amount alongwith interest @ 2.5% per month. In order to discharge his debt liability, petitioner issued cheque no.160803 dated 29.8.2005 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on Bank of Punjab,Moga. On presentation the said cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. After following the due procedure laid under the Act, respondent filed a complaint. Both sides led evidence. After hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed above and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence the present revision petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the complaint was filed by Sohan Singh complainant through special power of attorney Daljit Singh and it was not mentioned/explained in the complaint as to how Daljit Singh was conversant with the facts of the complaint. I find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal has rightly held that once Daljit Singh has been legally appointed as an attorney he is competent to make the statement on behalf of the complainant as he steps into the shoes of the Crl.Rev.No.3252 of 2010 3 complainant. It has further been found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the respondent has examined Mr.Deepak Sharma, Assistant Manager, Centurian Bank of Punjab, who on the basis of record proved that the cheque in question was presented for encashment but was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It was also noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that complainant Sohan Singh himself stepped into the witness box as CW3 and put forward his version. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a futile attempt to contend that the petitioner had never availed any loan from the complainant/respondent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal has noticed that it was for the accused to prove that there was no existing debt or liability on him, but the accused/petitioner has failed to prove the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence and in the absence of the same a presumption, as provided under Section 139of the Act, has to be drawn that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration i.e. in discharge of whole or in part of any debt or other liability. No other point has been urged before me. For the reasons stated above,finding no illegality or perversity in the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below, the present revision petition stands dismissed. 8.12.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge