In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Revision No.1553 of 2005 ..... Date of decision:1.8.2011 Vijay Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 ? ...... Present: Mr. A.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranbir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1-State. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 10.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.8.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur, convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and Cr. Revision No.1553 of 2005 [2] to pay fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days was upheld. The petitioner had raised a loan of `2,60,000/- from complainant-respondent No.2 by way of demand draft No.135305 dated 20.4.1998 amounting to `2,00,000/- and another draft No.075153 dated 8.5.1998 amounting to `60,000/-. The petitioner-accused had promised to return the loan amount along with interest at the rate of 1½ per cent per month on demand. Respondent No.2 demanded the amount along with interest i.e. `2,79,500/- from the accused-petitioner. However, on 19.9.1998, the petitioner being partner of accused No.2 i.e. M/s Sangrur Soft Drinks Co. issued a cheque bearing No.193130 for a sum of `2,79,500/- in favour of respondent No.2 in discharge of his legal liability. On presentation, this cheque was dishonoured by the concerned Bank and returned with the remarks “Exceeds arrangement” and the complainant- respondent No.2 was intimated by the Bank vide memo dated 9.10.1988. Complainant-respondent No.2 sent a legal notice (Ex.P.5) through his counsel by post calling upon the petitioner-accused to make the payment. In spite of that, the petitioner-accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the amount of the cheque to the complainant-respondent No.2. Thereafter, the complainant per force filed complaint against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have very carefully gone through the evidence produced in this case with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner Cr. Revision No.1553 of 2005 [3] never issued the cheque and the notice sent to him was time barred as in the register date had been written as 7.10.1998 for sending the notice, however, it was then changed to 9.10.1998 whereas the said cheque was issued in favour of the complainant by the accused on 19.9.1998. The acts which are components of the offence under Section 138 of the Act i.e. drawing of the cheque, presentation of the cheque to the Bank, returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee Bank, giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and failure of the drawer to make payment within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice, stand proved on record by the evidence led by the complainant-respondent No.2. The issuance of cheque has been duly proved on record as (Ex.P.1), intimation memo by Union Bank of India has been proved on record as (Ex.P.2) dated 9.10.1998. C.W.1 Devinder Parshad from Union Bank of India deposed on oath that cheque (Ex.P.1) dated 19.9.1998 bearing No.193130 amounting to `2,79,500/- was received by their Bank, which was sent for collection, but the same was dishonoured vide memo (Ex.P.3) and intimation in this regard was sent to the complainant vide intimation memo dated 9.10.1998 (Ex.P.2). He also proved on record the copy of cheque returning register as (Ex.P.4). C.W.2 Surjit Singh from State Bank of India deposed that drafts (Ex.P.6) and (Ex.P.7) were prepared from their Bank and he proved on record the debit slips of these drafts as (Exs.P.8 and Ex.P.9) and also deposed that `400/- and `180/- respectively were charged as transfer charges. He also deposed to the effect that these drafts were prepared in the name of M/s Sangrur Soft Drinks Co. i.e. Company of the petitioner. From their Cr. Revision No.1553 of 2005 [4] evidence, it stands proved on record that the cheque issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the complainant was dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Exceeds arrangement”. Once the petitioner has accepted before the Courts below that the cheque has been issued by him, his contention that there was an alteration in the date from 7.10.1998 to 9.10.1998 in the cheque returning register and that it was allegedly done in order to bring the legal notice (Ex.P.5) within stipulated time is without any basis. Even otherwise as is admitted by the learned counsel for the accused that till today cheque amount has not been paid by the accused to the complainant. It has been held in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 2000 (1) P.L.R 113, that Court will presume that holder of the cheque received it for discharge of any debt or liability and burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption, which the revision-petitioner has not been able to do in this case. The revision petitioner, therefore, has rightly been convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Act by the Courts below. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act is, therefore, confirmed. The sentence imposed on the petitioner is also commensurate with the offence committed by him. The sentence order does not call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, this criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. August 1, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*