In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2239 of 2003 Date of decision: May 05, 2009 Mohan Singh ... Petitioner Vs. B.M. Khanna ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Navjeet Sodhi, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 10.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Mohan Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 8.3.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein referred as 'the Act'). The allegations, in brief are that the petitioner, in discharge of his outstanding liability, had issued a cheque bearing No.720326 dated 21.9.1998 for a sum of Rs.35,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, in favour of the complainant which on presentation for encashment was dishonoured with the remarks “account closed”. A complaint was presented in the court in this regard. After recording preliminary evidence, the petitioner was summoned to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. On appearance the petitioner was served with notice of accusation to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The complainant led evidence in support of the allegations raised in the complaint. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner while admitting his signatures on the cheque Ex.C1; dishonouring of the cheuqe with the remarks 'account closed' vide memo Ex.C2/2, denied that he had closed the account after issuing of the cheuqe. However, he admitted that when he had issued the cheque there was no money in his account. He further pleaded his false implication and denied having receipt of legal notice Ex.C-2 and his liability to pay a sum of Rs.35000/- to the complainant. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. There is no denying a fact that the petitioner had issued a cheque (Ex.C1) for a sum of Rs.35,000/- in favour of the complainant which on presentation was dishonoured vide memo Ex.C2/2 with the remarks “account closed”. Even in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has admitted that no money was lying in his account for clearing the cheque in question. It is well settled by now that when once the issuance of cheque and signatures thereon are admitted, a presumption could be drawn that the accused owed this liability to pay the amount. The complainant while appearing in the witness box has categorically testified that the petitioner raised a loan of Rs.65,000/- and issued two cheques for Rs.30,000/- and Rs.35,000/- respectively. The cheque for a sum of Rs.35,000/- when presented for encashment was received back dishonoured with the remarks “account closed”. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no legal notice was received by the petitioner, it may be observed that the address of the petitioner as mentioned in the complaint is also find mentioned on the registered AD covers Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 as well as on the UPC receipt Ex.C5, therefore, the presumption is attached that the registered envelope containing the legal notice reached the petitioner at the address mentioned on it. Not an iota of evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove that he has discharged his liability. No other argument has been raised. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner. No illegality much less irregularity has been pointed out or detected warranting interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, findings no merit in the petition the same dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh for compliance. May 05, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge