CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2599 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 20, 2011 S.Raghbir Singh @ Sunny Jaspal Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Pawan Puri ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year coupled with fine of `3 lacs and in case of default in payment of fine, he is ordered to undergo further RI for six months. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected. He has accordingly filed the present revision petition to impugn his conviction and sentence. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2599 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: given friendly loan of `2,50,000/- to the petitioner in April 2007, which he agreed to return. In August 2009, the petitioner issued cheque dated 13.8.2009 for the said sum to the complainant, which when presented was returned unpaid on 24.8.2009. After serving a legal notice, the complaint was filed, when the petitioner did not discharge the liability. By placing reliance on Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G.Hegde, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 695, the counsel contends that the presumption available in favour of the prosecution under Section 139 of the Act stood rebutted when the complainant could not lead evidence in support of his plea that this huge sum was advanced by him as a loan to the petitioner. The ratio of law as laid down in Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case (supra) is not attracted to the facts of the present case. There is a clear evidence given by the complainant that he had paid the amount to the petitioner in the month of April and June 2007. The defence taken by the petitioner is not that this loan was not advanced but that he had returned the amount and in this regard had referred to the receipts mark `A` and mark `B'. As per the petitioner, still the cheques were not returned, which had been obtained as a security. Thus, the plea of the complainant that he had advanced loan to the petitioner is not denied by him but he claims to have repaid the same. The cheques concededly CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2599 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: were given as a security for the loan, which the petitioner took and the documents relied upon by him were only marked but were not exhibited. These documents can not be legally read into evidence and can not be relied upon being not duly proved documents. Thus, the presumption, which is to arise under law, could validly be drawn. The judgment would have no application to the facts of this case. I do not find any ground to interfere in the order of conviction. The view formed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court is reasonable and justified. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. October 20 ,2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE