IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No.2322 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.9.2009 Smt.Darshana Devi ....... Petitioner. Versus Rajesh Kumar Soni. ....... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the petitioner. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 25.8.2009 of the Sessions Judge, Hisar (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') vide which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 16.2.2009 and order of sentence dated 17.2.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were upheld. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short, `the Act') was filed by the respondent against the petitioner on the allegation that in order to discharge her existing liability, Crl.Revision Petition No.2322 of 2009 -2- .... she had issued cheque no.143027 dated 13.8.2002 in the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- which, on presentation to the concerned bank, was not honoured. The trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence led before it, convicted the petitioner and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Simultaneously, she was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- as compensation to the respondent and in default of payment thereof, she was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court resulting in the filing of the instant revision petition. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings against the petitioner are false and that the cheque in question was issued as a security for the loan which was obtained by her brother from the respondent. However, the issuance of cheque was not denied. He further contended that since the cheque was not for any legal liability, the conviction & sentence as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court are erroneous. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under Section 139 of the Act, a strong presumption of law is attracted if a cheque has been issued. It was for the petitioner, in these circumstances, to have Crl.Revision Petition No.2322 of 2009 -3- .... explained as to how this cheque was issued. The stand taken up by the petitioner during the course of proceedings was of denial and she even pleaded that it was forged. The cheque was examined by the Courts below and a specific finding has been recorded that even with naked eyes, the signatures appears to be the same. The petitioner did not make any effort to get her signatures examined from an expert to dislodge the presumption against her. She could not give any satisfactory explanation as to how the cheque bore her signatures. In this view of the matter, the presumption under Section 139 of the Act was not adequately off-set by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment can neither be termed to be erroneous nor can it be said to be contrary to law so as to warrant any interference therein. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. September 07,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge