IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 63/2007 Omprakash ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another ………. Respondents S.K. Shandilya, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. Parikshit Saini & Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocates, for the private respondent no. 2. 15th December, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.1.2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the judgment and order dated 22.9.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1008/2005, Anil Kumar Chauhan v. Omprakash, whereby the accused revisionist was convicted for the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and was imposed fine of ` 5,000/- nay compensation of ` 2,75,000/- to Anil Kumar Chauhan under Section 357 CrPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused revisionist was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, while in default of payment of compensation; he was directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment for six months. Hence, this revision has been professed by Omprakash. 2. After institution of this revision, this Court, on 4.7.2007, directed the revisionist to deposit ` 1,00,000/- out of the compensation amount before the court below and on this condition granted bail to the accused 2 revisionist. This Court has been apprised that the revisionist has deposited the said amount before the court below. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 4. The issuance of a cheque of ` 2,50,000/- is admitted by the accused revisionist and that has also been found proved by the trial court. So, the presumption under Section 118(a) & (g), as reproduced below, goes against the revisionist: “118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.—Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-- (a) of consideration—that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (g) that holder is a holder in due course— that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course: 5. Besides, in Section 139 of the Act, there is yet another presumption, which reads as under: “139. Presumption in favour of holder.— It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.” 3 6. The above presumption also goes against the accused revisionist. Moreover, the grounds of revision do not indicate any irregularity or apparent mistake or any glaring incongruity either in the impugned orders or in the evidence adduced in support of the prosecution. Hence, this revision has no force and it is liable to be dismissed. 7. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 22.1.2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar as well as the judgment and order dated 22.9.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar are affirmed. 8. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 15.12.2011 Prabodh