1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.307/2009 Sudhir Textiles,Proprietor Shri.Krishnath Kashinath Tarlekar APPLICANT (Ori.Accused no.2) VS Nilabh Textiles, Ichalkaranji,Prop.Nilabh Arunkumar Goyanka & Anr. RESPONDENT Mr.N.J.Patil for the Applicant Ms.S.V.Gajare,APP for State Mr.Y.S.Ingale for Res.no.1 CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE :4th SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C. . Heard finally by consent. This Revision application is filed against the judgment and order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji thereby confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C.Ichalkaranji imposing compensation of Rs. 90,000/-. 2] The original complainant has sold cotton yarn in the year 1993-94 . The family of the applicant is carrying out the business of power loom cloth and members of the said family have issued three cheques in favour of the original complainant and they all were dishonoured. The 2 complainant,therefore, issued separate notices demanding the amounts of all the three cheques. The respondent/ original complainant thereafter filed three separate criminal complaints against the concerned family members of Tarlekar family . 3] The locus of the original complainant who is manager and power of attorney holder of the said proprietory firm is challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. However,this defence is rightly denied by the learned Trial Judge considering the contents of the power of attorney executed in favour of the original complainant. The original complainant has proved that said cheque was issued against legally dischargeable debt by accused no.2.On this point reliance is placed on Vishnu Bhat Vs.Narayan R.Bandekar and Ors.reported in 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 497. 5] The learned Sessions Judge has also given correct reasoning in respect of the defence in rebuttal of the presumption adopted by the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has relied on Vinay Parulekar Vs.Pramod Meshram ,reported in 2008(2)Mh.L.J.115 in which it is held that - “Presumption under section 118(a) – Rebuttal of – It is not necessary for the accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence – The accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him, so also by the complainant himself.” 6] In the present case probable defence raised by the accused was not acceptable as the complainant has 3 successfully adduced sufficient and cogent evidenceon the ground of legally dischargeable liability therefore, this ruling is of no use. It is to be noted that the accused has deposited Rs.25,000/- during the pendency of the complaint. 7] The transaction has taken place in the year 1993-94 . No illegality is found in the concurrent findings of the two courts. Neither point of law nor grave error was pointed out by the learned counsel of the applicant. No good ground to admit the revision. The evidence tendered by the original complainant is sufficient to hold the applicant responsible for the dishonour of the cheque and order of conviction for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintained. Hence the Revision Application is rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)