IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.42 of 2008 Aman Singh Malik ………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ..…. Respondents Dated: November 18, 2011 Mr. Swapnil Bisht, Adv. i/b Mr. S.S. Bhandari, Adv. for the revisionist Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/opp. Party no.1 Mr. Tapan Singh, Adv. i/b Mr. Lokpal Singh, Adv. for opp. Party no.2 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This revision has been directed against the concurrent finding of learned trial court as well as that of learned Sessions Judge Haridwar, rendered by them in criminal complaint case no.664/2007 Jagdish Prasad Vs. Aman Singh Malik, and Criminal Appeal No.60.2007, Aman Singh Malik Vs. State of Uttaranchal & another, respectively. The trial court ended the adjudication in conviction of revisionist Aman Singh Malik for the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and directed him to pay the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant Jagdish Prasad Chauhan, or to undergo R.I. for a period of two years. Learned Magistrate further sentenced the accused for a fine of Rs.4,000/- payable to the Uttarahand Government, in default of which two months’ imprisonment was awarded. The said judgment was affirmed by learned Sessions Judge in criminal appeal no.60/2007, as stated above, whereagainst this revision has been preferred. The controversy rotates around the issuance of cheque dated 11.9.2004 to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- by the revisionist Aman Singh Malik to opposite party no.2 Jagdish 2 Prasad Chauhan, which was submitted by the drawee of the cheque on 13.9.2004 in the bank, but the same was dishonoured due to the closure of account and insufficiency of funds, and the same was returned to the drawee with the said endorsement of the bank on dated 13.10.2004. Notice was issued within the time prescribed under the Act, but of no avail, so the complaint was filed by Jagdish Prasad Chauhan which resulted into the conviction, as stated above. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the cheque book of the revisionist had lost somewhere and that had been in the hands of Jagdish Prasad Chauhan, somehow or the other, so he has misused this cheque. It has further been argued on behalf of the revisionist that the expert opinion dated 21.9.2005 also adverts that the signature upon the cheque in question does not resemble with that of the genuine signatures of Malik. These all contentions are unsubstantial, inasmuch as, the private expert opinion is not a conclusive proof. Fortiori, by and large, it is rendered in favour of the person who pays the remuneration to the expert for the purpose. More so, bank has not made any endorsement on the memo while returning the cheque that it does not resemble with that of the account holder. So far as the loss of cheque book is concerned, the FIR was lodged by the revisionist against the opposite party no.2, which resulted into the submission of the final report by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, when this notice was given by opposite party no.2 to the revisionist, as envisaged u/s 138(b) of the Act, the endorsement of the postman is enough to infer that the revisionist deliberately averted the same. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., revisionist Aman Singh Malik himself accepts the receipt of the notice but he did not reply the same contending that his cheque book had been lost, which has been misused by Sri Jagdish Prasad Chauhan. 3 So, in view of the above, this revision is totally devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Revision is dismissed accordingly. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 18.11.2011 Rajeev Dang