In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2421 of 2007 Date of Decision:20-01-2009 Joginder Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab Mr.B.K.Arora, Advocate, for the complainant SABINA, J.(Oral) Petitioner-Joginder Singh was convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2006. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 10.12.2007. Hence, the present revision petition. The case of the complainant, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, in brief is as under:- “The complainant/respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused/appellant on the allegations that the accused obtained hire purchase loan from the complainant and as a Crl. Revision No. 2421 of 2007 -2- part payment of the said liability debt, he issued one cheque bearing No. 533404 dated 22.9.2004 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Tunda Talab, Amritsar, for Rs. 2,55,000/- out of his account No. 5399 which on presentation by the complainant for encashment through is banker, was returned unpaid vide bank memo dated 23.9.2004 with the remarks “funds insufficient”. The complainant served legal notice dated 24.9.2004 through registered A.D., but the accused refused to receive the said notice and as such he having full knowledge thereof, failed to make the payment of the cheque amount. Hence, the present complaint.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant had failed to prove his case. The cheque, in question, had not been issued by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the cheque issued by the petitioner had been dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The petitioner at the time of issuance of notice of motion on 20.12.2007 has stated before this Court that he would make the payment of the amount in instalments and on this count his sentence was suspended. However, petitioner had failed to pay the amount, in question, to the respondent. Cheque (Exhibit CW 1/2) was issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent-finance company on 22.9.2004 for a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/-. The same bears the signatures of the petitioner. The said cheque was dishonoured due to “ funds insufficient”. Despite notice issued by the complainant, the petitioner failed to pay the amount. The complainant has duly proved its case by leading its evidence. The fact that Crl. Revision No. 2421 of 2007 -3- the cheque was issued by the petitioner leads to a presumption that the same has been issued for discharge of a liability. There is nothing on record to suggest that the cheque, in question, was not, in fact, issued by the petitioner. Hence, the impugned judgment of the courts below called for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 20, 2009 PARAMJIT