` 1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.138 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.139 OF 2011 Govardhan M. Savalia ...Applicant. v/s. The State and Anr ...Respondents. Mr. R.Sathyanarayan i/by Shri A.M.Moorthy ,advs. For the Applicant. Mr. D.R.More, APP For the Respondent No.1/State. Shri Ashok Bhatia, adv. For the R.No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 13, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who is original accused as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the Record and proceedings. 2 Respondent no.2 is the original complainant. He had filed complaint bearing criminal case no.2294/SS/2005 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivali under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to him, the present applicant, who is accused no.1 and who is proprietor of the accused no.2 M/s. G.M.Savalia and Company received Rs.23,25,000/- ` 2 from him by giving assurance that his daughter would be given admission in medical college. That assurance was not fulfilled and to repay the amount , the accused issued a cheque drawn against the account maintained with Bank of Baroda. The cheque was presented for encashment but it was returned unpaid on the ground that payment was stopped by the drawer of the cheque. In spite of service of the statutory notice, accused did not make the payment within the stipulated period, therefore, complaint was filed. 3 Contention of the accused was that amount was actually received by one Kumar Maniram Chaudhary and he had also passed receipt. Accused had only issued cheque, which was to be presented only if said Kumar Maniram Chaudhary would not make the repayment of that amount. Kumar Maniram Chaudhary was not examined as defence witness nor the said receipt was proved. The trial Court after hearing the evidence led by the parties convicted the accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month and to pay amount of Rs. 23,25,000/- and in default to undergo further S.I. for three months. On recovering amount, it was to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Appeal preferred by the present applicant was dismissed. ` 3 After perusal of the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that applicant is a Chartered Accountant and tax consultant. He admits that he had issued the cheque. He also admits the signature on the cheque. Therefore, there is presumption under Section 118 as well as under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued for consideration. According to the complainant, he had made the payment of amount of Rs.23,25,000/- to the accused, who had assured admission of his daughter in the medical college and as he could not fulfill the assurance, he issued the cheque for repayment of the money. It is impossible to presume that accused, who is Chartered Accountant and tax consultant would have issued cheque without any consideration. Even if for the sake of arguments, contention of the accused is accepted that amount was received by Kumar Maniram Chaudhary and the accused had issued cheque with clear instructions that if the amount would not be paid by Kumar Maniram Chaudhary then only cheque be presented for encashment, it appears that he had issued the cheque as guarantor for repayment of the money. If he was the guarantor, he is liable to make the payment. It is not the case of the accused that Kumar Maniram Chaudhary had made payment and in spite of that the cheque was misused. ` 4 4 Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I find no substance in the revision application. Therefore, the Revision application stands dismissed. 5 In the result, Criminal Application Nos.138 and 139 of 2011 do not survive and stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)